Domain Names and Persistence workshop, 8 December, Bristol, UK

[Jonathan Rees]

Some of you might be interested in this workshop to be held in
Bristol, UK, 8 Dec 2011.
The usual apology for repeat announcements.

Best
Jonathan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Henry S. Thompson <h...@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM
Subject: Domain Names and Persistence workshop, 8 December, Bristol, UK
To: www...@w3.org

The TAG has gotten agreement from W3C and the DCC [1] to sponsor a
workshop [2] in conjunction with IDCC11 [3] in Bristol on 8 December
on the topic of Domain Names and Persistence.

Participation does _not_ require registration at the main conference,
but will require its own registration process, to be announced.

Please let me know if you are interested in presenting at the
workshop.

ht

[1] http://www.dcc.ac.uk/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/idcc_workshop.html
[3] http://www.dcc.ac.uk/events/idcc11/
--
      Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
     10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
               Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: h...@inf.ed.ac.uk
                      URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

[Trish Whetzel]

Anyone planning to attend?

Trish

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Shared names" group.
To post to this group, send email to shared...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to shared-names...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/shared-names?hl=en.

[Mark]

Hi all SharedNamers.

It's been quite a while since there was any traffic on this group, or any
updates on the website. In the meantime, there has been considerable
progress from the Identifiers.org team to solve a similar problem to
Shared Names.

In the interests of throwing all of our weight behind one initiative (and
a good one at that! With funding!), could we consider putting some
indication on the shared names website that the project is (at a minimum)
stalled, and that we are supporting the efforts of ID's.org? It would be
good to avoid diluting the community, and also bring more attention to the
IDs.org initiative.

Thoughts?

Mark

[Alan Ruttenberg]

I've just had to write a letter to Nicolas and a curator, who seem to be in the process of creating duplicate identifiers for OBO ontology terms. Shared names was never intended for ontology resources, only database records. So I'm dubious about the efforts of identifiers.org. I'm even more dubious given that there has been no effort on their part to reach out and try to learn from what we worked on, or incorporate ideas we considered to be important. 

I won't put *my* support behind identifiers.org under these circumstances.

I'd be happy to have a conversation with them if they are interested in collaborating, in the interest of ensuring that our use cases are met.

Best,

Alan

Mark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Shared names" group.
To post to this group, send email to shared...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to shared-names+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Michel Dumontier]

Alan,

  Nothing that you write is specific enough for anybody to address. Can you clearly articulate the issue(s) you have with identifiers.org?

 

m.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to shared-names...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/shared-names?hl=en.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Shared names" group.
To post to this group, send email to shared...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to shared-names...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/shared-names?hl=en.

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5877 - Release Date: 11/06/12

[Alan Ruttenberg]

On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Michel Dumontier <Michel_D...@carleton.ca> wrote:

Alan,

  Nothing that you write is specific enough for anybody to address. Can you clearly articulate the issue(s) you have with identifiers.org?

Is the lack of communication with this group unclear? 

Are you aware that identifiers.org is creating URIs for OBO ontology terms, and that in doing so is creating a second URI for resource that has a clear policy and sustainable policy for creating those identifiers?

I will ask others privately if my communication was unclear. 

With this communication are you now clear?

-Alan

[Michel Dumontier]

 

> Is the lack of communication with this group unclear? 

 

Which group? I’m a driver for identifiers.org

 

> Are you aware that identifiers.org is creating URIs for OBO ontology terms, and that in doing so is creating a second URI for resource that has a clear policy and sustainable policy for creating those identifiers?

 

Absolutely. Are you aware that resolving an identifiers.org identifier gives you the set of services that provide information about it? And that list is extensible?

 

> I will ask others privately if my communication was unclear. 

 

So your objection is really a statement of awareness?

 

Tell me more… still don’t see the problem.

[Alan Ruttenberg]

Michelle,

Your email response doesn't make any sense to me. If there is any sincerity to your inquiry you can send me mail off list suggesting suggesting an agenda and some times you would be available to chat. 

-Alan

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5877 - Release Date: 11/06/12

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Shared names" group.
To post to this group, send email to shared...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to shared-names...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/shared-names?hl=en.

--

[Jonathan A Rees]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Mark <ma...@illuminae.com> wrote:

Hi Mark,

This is a good question, thanks for raising it. Shared names has a stated set of requirements: http://sharedname.org/page/Project_overview  Anything that meets these requirements ought to be seriously considered an implementation of shared names. The whole point after all was to make an open system based to the extent possible on conformance to specification, rather than authority.

I looked at the NAR paper. The paper does not address most of the shared names requirements - it seems to be focussed on other issues and services that I didn't really understand. But if you or someone else wants to explain how the shared names goals are met by identifiers.org or any other system, and after consideration the explanation is generally accepted here, then we definitely can say the job is done. To relax the requirements would also be possible, although being the core asset of the proposal (along with the process document), this might be tricky. Either would involve firing up our steering committee's consensus process again, which I'm happy to do (or let someone else do) if a specific proposal is put forth and a consensus seems possible according to the process we agreed.

Otherwise I think the requirements should just be left standing as a challenge to identifiers.org and other similar future efforts.

Best

Jonathan

 

Mark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Shared names" group.
To post to this group, send email to shared...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to shared-names+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Michel Dumontier]

Jonathan,

Thank you for this constructive bit (since it clearly identifies the issue).  To address the concern of whether identifiers.org can be considered a “serious” implementation of sharednames, I would recommend that we ask Nicolas to prepare a report that clearly identifies each sharednames requirement and whether identifiers.org supports it.

 

Agreed?

 

m.

 

From: shared...@googlegroups.com [mailto:shared...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan A Rees
Sent: November-10-12 7:13 AM
To: shared...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Shared names vs. Identifiers.org

 

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Mark <ma...@illuminae.com> wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to shared-names...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/shared-names?hl=en.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Shared names" group.
To post to this group, send email to shared...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to shared-names...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/shared-names?hl=en.

[Jonathan A Rees]

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Michel Dumontier <Michel_D...@carleton.ca> wrote:

Jonathan,

Thank you for this constructive bit (since it clearly identifies the issue).  To address the concern of whether identifiers.org can be considered a “serious” implementation of sharednames, I would recommend that we ask Nicolas to prepare a report that clearly identifies each sharednames requirement and whether identifiers.org supports it.

 

Agreed?

This would be a great starting point, yes.

As is common with this kind of thing there may be some things about the shared names plan that were so obvious to most or all participants that they didn't get put into the requirements list, such as uniqueness (the desire for the identifiers to be effective in relational joins - which is where the whole thing started as I recall), so I'm not ready to say that the requirements list is complete. And obviously the requirements statements are open to interpretation. But there is plenty of territory in the published requirements list, and the requirements are hard to meet in any case, so it would be a good place to get going, if people think the exercise is worthwhile.

Jonathan

[Michel Dumontier]

Agreed?

 

This would be a great starting point, yes.

 

As is common with this kind of thing there may be some things about the shared names plan that were so obvious to most or all participants that they didn't get put into the requirements list, such as uniqueness (the desire for the identifiers to be effective in relational joins - which is where the whole thing started as I recall), so I'm not ready to say that the requirements list is complete. And obviously the requirements statements are open to interpretation. But there is plenty of territory in the published requirements list, and the requirements are hard to meet in any case, so it would be a good place to get going, if people think the exercise is worthwhile.

 

The question is whether this is what Alan wants, and whether he would be satisfied by that. If not, it’s incumbent on Alan to provide the list of things he wants to see.

 

My personal opinion is that Nicolas has already put significant effort into this and is seeking funds to continue development. What Mark was putting forward was that we collectively support identifiers.org to be the implementation we were seeking (to the extent possible).  If Alan and others (including myself) can express our requirements (which I have done to Nicolas in my letter of support), then we  can have a vehicle to implement these. Pure functional pragmatism drives our interest in identifiers.org.

 

m.

 

 

 

[Mark]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:33:13 +0100, Michel Dumontier
<Michel_D...@carleton.ca> wrote:

> Jonathan,
> Thank you for this constructive bit (since it clearly identifies the
> issue). To address the concern of whether identifiers.org can be
> considered a "serious" implementation of sharednames, I would recommend
> that we ask Nicolas to prepare a report that clearly identifies each
> sharednames requirement and whether identifiers.org supports it.
>
> Agreed?

I think that's completely reasonable... and looking at the requirements of
sharednames again, given what I know about identifiers.org, it seems to me
that they fulfill all of them (at least, what I *understand* by the
requirements as stated)

But I agree with Michel - it is not my place to say. Nicolas is really
the person who should speak for identifiers.org.

M

[Mark]

> so I'm not ready to say that
> the requirements list is complete. And obviously the requirements
> statements are open to interpretation. But there is plenty of territory
> in
> the published requirements list, and the requirements are hard to meet in
> any case, so it would be a good place to get going, if people think the
> exercise is worthwhile.

I think that, perhaps, the more salient point is being missed here. The
sharednames project (website) has not been updated in... ages! ...and we
don't seem to be actively converging on any solution. Moreover, my
message to the sharednames mailing list took a full month to get a
response!

Identifiers.org is an active project, being supported with dedicated
funding, that is (at least nominally) attempting to address a similar set
of problems to sharednames... and Nicolas responds to questions/concerns
within minutes (at least, in my experience), regardless of whether we
agree/disagree on the topic. So... are we not just fluffing-over the
obvious point that "one of these things is not like the other" in a (as
Michel said) very *pragmatic* way?

"it's worse than that, Jim..." - McCoy

M

[Jonathan A Rees]

That the project is stalled is pretty obvious from the site, don't you think? I guess I have no real objection to just saying that it is, but I don't see much need, and don't have the energy to compose a notice and go in and tweak the site.

I'm not interested in putting *my* weight behind a project I don't understand and think is good, and I don't understand identifiers.org or know whether it's good. The NAR paper was not promising IMO, but I'll keep an open mind and look forward to the evaluation against SN requirements.

Shared names has or had a good design, good process, and good community. We *did* converge on a good solution very nicely I think. It just didn't have someone to stand up and say "I'm going to do this". So it goes. That happens to a lot of specifications. If identifiers.org is healthy it won't need our help, and if there's a chance for this community to influence identifiers.org positively, that chance won't be helped by doing an endorsement.

Jonathan

M

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Shared names" group.
To post to this group, send email to shared...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to shared-names+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.