[DAS2] Ontology URIs

[Steve Chervitz]

Forwarding this message to the das/2 discussion at Suzi's request.

Suzi: Could you give an example of hash vs slash-type URIs?

Steve

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Suzanna Lewis" <suzi.lewis at gmail.com>
> To: Gregg_Helt at affymetrix.com
> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:42:16 +0000
> Subject: Re: Ontology URIs (was RE: types.rnc)
> Hi Gregg,
> 
> A couple of months ago you asked me what NCBO might be doing in terms of
> URIs. The discussion has finally begun, and so I'm forwarding this to you
> because I thought you might want to comment as well. Good to have feedback
> from everyone who will be affected.
> 
> I think we need to address the URI issue ASAP. The questions raised at
> HCLSIG highlight the importance of the issue (putting them here coz
> not everyone on cBio technical would have seen them). The main ones
> till now are:
> 
> 1 - If the authors have their own namespace URI, that means they have
> to maintain a copy of the ontology at their own site. I wonder how
> will the synchronization between the bioportal to the external site be
> established?
> 
> ** This assumes that a URI = URL, which is not required by the URI
> spec. URI resolution services, such as LSID are bound to enter the
> discussion here.
> 
> 2 - If an ontology is to adopt the URI that the bioportal provides, I
> wonder what kind of URI, in terms of the hash vs. slash, that the
> bioportal will support.  For a samll sized ontology, the hash URI
> would be sufficient and ideal.  But if the ontology's size is huge, I
> do believe the slash URI should be used to avoid the unnecessary
> import. From the implementation point of view, however, supporting
> slash URI would take a lot more hassle than supporting the hash URI. I
> wonder if bioportal will be able to support that?
> 
> ** Slash = hassle to implement the server. Hash = easy to implement
> the server,
> 
> For OBO to OWL, we chose the hash.
> 
> 3- One comment on versioning issues (question2) . The matter is more
> complex than the answer suggests. If a clinical system ever refers to
> a URI in BioPortal this URI should stay forever. Even if a new version
> of the ontology is deployed the original URI should still point to the
> old term or concept, even if it is deprecated. So versioning is more
> than a development or collaboration issue. I don't know wether the
> answer given to question 3 solves this.
> 
> -Nigam.
> 
> cbio-technical-bounces at lists.stanford.edu wrote on :
> 
> Do we have a policy for URIs?
> 
> Should we form a URI working group?
> --++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
> cbio-technical mailing list cbio-technical at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbio-technical
> 
> --++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
> cbio-technical mailing list
> cbio-technical at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cbio-technical

------ End of Forwarded Message