<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-NZ" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D">Sounds like a good idea, but I’m not sure I agree with this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D">Putting in a hard coded GUID type (LSID) into the name of an element does not sound wise. It restricts the use of that element too much.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D">The issue here is that linked data technologies cannot automatically resolve a URN (basic http get). So it may be better to include all URNs in this idea,
eg<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D">hasScientificName = string form<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D">hasScientificNameID = http resolvable URI<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D">hasScientificNameURN = LSID or other URN<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D">This also then relies on any consuming technology to “know” what a specific URN type is and how to resolve it, but I suppose it is really systems that are
LSID aware that tend to have this issue in the first place, so this would cover this specific area of concern …<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D">So, I suppose I am agreeing with this approach, and like Gregor stated this sounds like a better way than “hacking” with URNs to make them http URLs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D">Kevin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Peter DeVries<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, 4 October 2010 6:55 a.m.<br>
<b>To:</b> tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [tdwg-content] Idea for Discussion, Differentiating between "type's" of identifiers<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have been thinking about the following pattern. In part after looking at the GBIF vocabulary.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am not sure if it is even a good idea but might be worth some discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">For those fields that have both a string and "ID" form maybe the following pattern might be useful<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">hasScientificName = string form<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">hasScientificNameURI = Resolvable LOD compliant identifier<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">hasScientificNameLSID = LSID identifier which could be resolvable once you add the "http:proxy" etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This allows all three forms to be included if desired, it also provides a hint as to how the field should be interpreted or resolved.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">One group could also provide a mapping service so that each record does not need to include all three forms, but would allow systems<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">to find the matching LSID for a given URI or vs. versa.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">My concern was that it would be difficult to infer how a scientificNameID should be interpreted by other systems.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is this an LSD, is it a URI, is it a UUID etc. ?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This impacts the structure of the RDF.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* Note that the actual identifiers might not be correct, the example below is more about the form of the RDF<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* For instance, I don't think it is probably correct to see the COL LSID as just a namestring<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* Also in this example the GNI name does not exactly match the string name<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><dwc:hasScientificName>Puma concolor (Linnaeus 1771)</dwc:hasScientificName><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><dwc:hasScientificNameURI rdf:resource="<a href="http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/6c3dc35f-d901-5cc5-b9c8-ad241069b9f8">http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/6c3dc35f-d901-5cc5-b9c8-ad241069b9f8</a>"/><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><dwc:hasScientificNameLSID rdf:resource="urn:lsid:catalogueoflife.org:taxon:24e7d624-60a7-102d-be47-00304854f810:ac2010"/><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some system may choke on the LSID form assuming that it uses a standard resolution mechanism<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So it might be best to use this form<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><dwc:hasScientificNameLSID>urn:lsid:catalogueoflife.org:taxon:24e7d624-60a7-102d-be47-00304854f810:ac2010</dwc:hasScientificNameLSID><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">- Pete<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
----------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Pete DeVries<br>
Department of Entomology<br>
University of Wisconsin - Madison<br>
445 Russell Laboratories<br>
1630 Linden Drive<br>
Madison, WI 53706<br>
<a href="http://www.taxonconcept.org/" target="_blank">TaxonConcept Knowledge Base</a> /
<a href="http://lod.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">GeoSpecies Knowledge Base</a><br>
<a href="http://about.geospecies.org/" target="_blank">About the GeoSpecies Knowledge Base</a><br>
------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Green" size="1">Please consider the environment before printing this email<br>
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.<br>
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>