[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The internal use was mine (I was just using it as a substitute for a
namespace). Maybe we should upgrade it to be compatable with IBM or
Taverna?
- Mark
Michael Heuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
06/16/2005 03:27 AM
To: Gary Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Schreiber/GP/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Biojava-l] LSID
The biojava LSID and the IBM LSID are slightly different APIs, the IBM one
the more complete of the two. There also are/were LSID client
implementations that I'm not very familiar with in taverna [0] and for
whatever reason in an email client called Haystack [1].
Taverna and Haystack (not an email client!) both use the reference
implementation, i.e. the IBM one. In theory though the implementation
shouldn't be that important, it's a standard after all - I'm not sure
how actively supported IBM's one is but we've been using it quite
happily for ages now.
We use LSIDs in a slightly different manner to that originally intended,
in that we're mostly using them to name transient entities such as
workflow process instances although we do also name concrete data items.
Cheers,
Tom (Taverna lead)
_______________________________________________
Biojava-l mailing list - Biojava-l@biojava.org
http://biojava.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l
