[tdwg-content] delimiter characters for concatenated IDs

[Robert Guralnick]

  Darn it, Hilmar.  I promised to not say more, but I am compelled to now
because of this cogent and rational response.  Nico Cellinese, John Deck
and I are assembling folks for a pre-TDWG meeting to work towards a common
solution, as much as it can be done and recognizing that there may be
different needs and use cases.  The goal of that is to produce a community
developed manuscript that can be published, and that details our best
efforts to develop common solution(s) that we can rally behind.

  The meeting was originally conceived, for many reasons, as by invitation,
but we are interested in reporting out the work accomplished the final
afternoon of this meeting, and to open up the conversation more broadly.
 If people are interested, I am happy to pass along more about the intent
and to remind people when we might have that open session for reporting and
feedback.

Best, Rob





On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Hilmar Lapp <hlapp at nescent.org> wrote:

>
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Contrary to Hilmar, there is more to this than simply a quick hackathon.
>> Yes, a service that takes metadata and returns one or more identifiers is a
>> good idea and easy to create (there will often be more than one because
>> museum codes are not unique). But who maintains this service? Who maintains
>> the identifiers? Who do I complain to if they break? How do we ensure that
>> they persist when, say, a museum closes down, moves its collection, changes
>> it’s web technology? Who provides the tools that add value to the
>> identifiers? (there’s no point having them if they are not useful)
>>
>
> Jonathan Rees pointed this out to me too off-list. Just for the record,
> this isn't contrary but fully in line with what I was saying (or trying to
> say). Yes, I didn't elaborate that part, assuming, perhaps rather
> erroneously, that all this goes without saying, but I did mention that one
> part of this becoming a real solution has to be an institution with an
> in-scope cyberinfrastructure mandate that going in would make a commitment
> to sustain the resolver, including working with partners on the above slew
> of questions. The institution I gave was iDigBio; perhaps for some reason
> that would not be a good choice, but whether they are or not wasn't my
> point.
>
> I will add one point to this, though. It seems to me that by continuing to
> argue that we can't go ahead with building a resolver that works (as far as
> technical requirements are concerned) before we haven't first fully
> addressed the institutional and social long-term sustainability commitment
> problem, we are and have been making this one big hairy problem that we
> can't make any practical pragmatic headway about, rather than breaking it
> down into parts, some of which (namely the primarily technical ones) are
> actually fairly straightforward to solve. As a result, to this day we don't
> have some solution that even though it's not very sustainable yet, at least
> proves to everyone how critical it is, and that the community can rally
> behind. Perhaps that's naïve, but I do think that once there's a solution
> the community rallies behind, ways to sustain it will be found.
>
>   -hilmar
> --
> Hilmar Lapp -:- informatics.nescent.org/wiki -:- lappland.io
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-content mailing list
> tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-content/attachments/20140505/42c6a9c8/attachment.html