Classes should have opaque identifiers, map existing ids to them
Opened this issue · 1 comments
mobb commented
Note rom @mpsaloha and @stevenchong
Should we keep or change any URIs that contain hashtags?
- As of 8/3 we are leaning towards deprecating and reissuing the ECSO URIs in a numerical format (e.g. ECSO_12345678).
- This means that ALL the URIs in OBOE should be re-evaluated because they contain hashtags and fragment identifiers.
Steven identified several documents describing the issues regarding issues with “hashtag/fragment” identifiers for ontological terms:- oboFoundry states that local identifiers should not contain labels or other content that can be used for remembering identifiers: http://www.obofoundry.org/principles/fp-003-uris.html
- The W3C advocates for URI opacity because people might infer something about the nature of the resource referenced that isn't necessarily true.https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity
- Drilling down the oboFoundry policy page, you find they frown on using hashtags in identifiers, except for instances of legacy URIs. One problem is using a '#' doesn't scale if the goal is to provide web pages for each term.http://www.obofoundry.org/id-policy.html
- Finally, the W3C states that hashtags should really only be used for "small and stable sets of resources that evolve together". In our case we need ability to evolve terms such that their identifiers do not have “embedded semantics” in the URI name-- https://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#solutions