Aaron Brown wrote:
There are reasons for a bulkier, less context-sensitive identifier scheme, but I'm not sure the NML list is the right place to hash this out since the identifier schemes are relevant more for lookup and distribution than basic description.
What do you mean by distribution in this case?
For the sake of NML, i'd prefer to leave it at "identifiers are globally unique strings".
I compeletely agree with that. I've tried to hammer this point down at a GLIF meeting last year as well. I am all for leaving the form of the identifiers up to the people creating them. There are lots and lots of ways to create a globally unique identifier and everybody has their preference. I really don't care what they choose as long as it is *globally unique*. But, I do have to add one restriction to that clause. The globally unique string should be just an identifier, nothing more. That means no implicit type information, no implicit location information, no implicit source information, nothing. The globally unique string must identify a resource, about which more things can be stated using NML. Jeroen. -- My email address has changed to <vdham@uva.nl> (The science has disappeared from my address, but I'm still doing it)