[Biojava-dev] RE: Flyweight Ontologies?

[Matthew Pocock]

Hi,

The core ontology probably does qualify, perhaps. 
URN:biojava:ontology/core for the ontology and perhaps 
URN:biojava:ontology/core|ISA and the like for the terms? 
URN:biojava:ontolgy/core|relation,has_a,domain for triples? Or we could 
just give all terms & triples a unique numerical ID somewhere and do 
<ontoURN>#<id> - far to many options.

Matthew

>>A particular LSID should resolve for all eternity to the same 
>>entity, so 
>>by using LSIDs for things like ontologies within a running 
>>application, 
>>we are implicitly contracting ourselves to have that data 
>>available /for 
>>ever/, even if it is working data or intermediate results, or 
>>if we know 
>>we will be changing the schema next week. URNs don't have 
>>this restriction.
>>    
>>
> 
>Wouldn't the core Ontology come under that categorie? If not, what form do you think the URN should take? Is there a need for each Term to know which Triple it belongs too or which Ontology?
>
>- Mark
>=======================================================================
>Attention: The information contained in this message and/or attachments
>from AgResearch Limited is intended only for the persons or entities
>to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
>material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
>taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
>entities other than the intended recipients is prohibited by AgResearch
>Limited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the
>sender immediately.
>=======================================================================
>
>_______________________________________________
>biojava-dev mailing list
>biojava-dev at biojava.org
>http://biojava.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev
>
>  
>