mcourtot
commented
10 years ago I thought the point of using _ instead of : was that the latter was not valid in RDF/XML, which is not really dependent on the OBO ID policy.
I guess I’m not clear what is the redirection that Nick would need. Why does identifiers.org not use the Uberon URIs for example?
On Jul 31, 2014, at 3:42 PM, Chris Mungall notifications@github.com wrote:
See https://sourceforge.net/p/identifiers-org/new-collection/16/
Due to the obolibrary ID scheme which replaces ':'s with '_'s, identifiers.org cannot plug in ontobee as a resolver for uberon, cl, etc which is unfortunate.
Judging by Nick's response, if ontobee can implement a resolution service such that standard colon-separated IDs are used to redirect to the purl then we can plug in ontobee.
This could be formalized via some kind of shared json-ld context file with entries like
UBERON: "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_"
Making UBERON:0007225 a valid curie for http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0007225
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
See https://sourceforge.net/p/identifiers-org/new-collection/16/
Due to the obolibrary ID scheme which replaces ':'s with '_'s, identifiers.org cannot plug in ontobee as a resolver for uberon, cl, etc which is unfortunate.
Judging by Nick's response, if ontobee can implement a resolution service such that standard colon-separated IDs are used to redirect to the purl then we can plug in ontobee.
This could be formalized via some kind of shared json-ld context file with entries like
UBERON: "http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_"
Making UBERON:0007225 a valid curie for http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0007225