identifiers for geologic samples

Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller at MOBOT.ORG
Tue Jan 31 16:33:06 CET 2006


Rod,
Great points.  I agree with you.

I just think the dilemma lies in the desire to make GUIDs locatable.  I
think the Handle system presumes that somewhere a "switchboard" is being
maintained that maps the handles to a URL.  Who has the funds and resources
to serve up this switchboard and most importantly maintain it for millions
of GUIDs?  If those resources are available, then using a centralized
redirection system like Handle avoids the complications you describe.  But,
without those central administrative resources, then institutions will map
their own GUIDs and to my mind the simplest and most doable way to do that
is just using a URL-based approach, similar to LSID.  It's a compromise to
get things moving.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Roderic Page
To: TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Sent: 2006/01/30 12:50
Subject: Re: [TDWG-GUID] identifiers for geologic samples

Dear Chuck,

Nobody that I'm aware of is suggesting replacing the DNS (least of all  
me). Any solution that gets implement anytime soon will of course use  
the Internet. Handles use the Internet in their current implementation,

indeed anytime you look up a DOI, or follow a link in a journal that's  
marked "CrossRef", you use handles.

It's just that:

(a) I'm a little wary of including Internet addresses in GUIDs, more  
because the implied link to a site may disappear if the site  
dies/moves/changes name. Yes there are mechanisms to deal with this,  
but having an Internet address has the potential to mislead. Imagine if

records served by MOBOT start to get served by, say, the New York  
Botanical Garden. What will users think of resolving an LSID with  
mobot.org in the name and getting a different server. A generation  
brought up with phishing scams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing),

and taught to check a URL is really what it says it is might get  
nervous.

(b) I'm not seriously arguing the DNS or the Internet are going away  
anytime soon, however I think it is interesting that this is a concern  
voiced by the people who are probably closest to us in mindset -  
digital librarians. They care deeply about curation, have rare, old,  
culturally valuable artefacts, and want systems that persist beyond  
current fashions and/or technologies. Sound familiar? If so, let's ask  
why have they gone for things like handles?

Regards

Rod

On 28 Jan 2006, at 14:25, Chuck Miller wrote:

> Although the Internet may change in the future and none of us have a  
> crystal ball, some method for turning names (gbif.org) into network  
> addresses (192.38.28.79) will be required.  For the forseeable future

> that method on the Internet will almost certainly be DNS. The cascade

> of the global DNS server network is key to making the Internet work. 

> No matter what URL you put into your browser, the DNS network finds  
> its way to the IP address of the server.  Trillions of dollars of  
> commerce now depend upon this global standard. I think the analogy is

> more like the teletype machines and the ASCII codes they used.   
> Although we have Unicode now, it still includes ASCII. In  
> communications, the new must continue to support the old.  This can be

> seen in the W3C projects that continue to build upon the previous  
> standards.
>
> To replace the Internet's global DNS locator service with something  
> unique to biodiversity seems like a complex, expensive and long-term  
> proposition.  For the sake of getting things done in a timely manner,

> I think we need to keep things simple and leverage the pieces of the  
> puzzle that already work.  Implementing a GUID scheme is going to be  
> tough enough without tackling a replacement for DNS.
>
> An issue that needs to be decided by the workshop is how much  
> "abstraction" of a GUID is absolutely necessry if it must also be  
> locatable through the Internet?  That is, is a compromise needed to  
> allow embedding of domain names in order to enable use of the DNS to  
> locate GUIDs.  Surely there is insufficient time, funds, and staff to

> embark upon creation of a master switchboard (database) where the  
> locations of millions of GUIDs are recorded and updated in perpetuity.
>
> Chuck Miller
> Missouri Botanical Garden
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roderic Page
> To: TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Sent: 1/28/2006 2:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [TDWG-GUID] identifiers for geologic samples
>
> On 28 Jan 2006, at 01:02, Richard Pyle wrote:
>
> > The more I think about it, the more I think this is the sort of  
> system
> > that
> > would work well for our field.  A centralized issuer (which could
> issue
> > blocks of thousands or millions of numbers at a time),
>
> The major problem I see with this is that a central registry may be a
> rate limiting step because it has to allocate blocks, it would also
> decide for format of the last part of the identifier (which the
> provider might not find desirable), and it may well lead to lots of
> wasted identifiers (e.g., it allocates 100,000 to me, but I use 3 off
> them).
>
> Would it not be better to devolve this? You can still have a central
> registry. For example, Handles and DOIs work by having a central
> registry for the prefix (e.g., "1018") and the provider is responsible
> for allocating the suffix locally.
>
>
> > I'm not sure how wise it would be to create a new syntax standard,
> > rather
> > than go with one of the ones we've discussed.  But if (for example)
> > using
> > LSID, I personally think it would be preferable to establish a
highly
> > generic form, such as:
> >
> > urn:lsid:gbif.org:BioGUID:12345
>
> Without wishing to preempt some of the things I'm going to present at
> the workshop, I'm going off LSIDs a little because of their reliance
on
> the Internet DNS. Apart from the hassle of mucking with the DNS
records
> to set them up (I suspect not every provider is going to find this
easy
> to do), it assumes that the Internet its present form is going to be
> here forever, and it also embeds information in the identifier (e.g.,
> "gbif.org") that currently has meaning, but over time may loose
> meaning, or worse, be positively misleading (say if GBIF goes belly up
> and somebody else serves the data).
>
> Handles (including DOIs) and ARK have no information in the identifier
> (perhaps not strictly true for some DOIs, but that's by choice not
> design), and also in principle don't need the internet. In the future
> some other mode of information transport may come along, and they
could
> still be used.
>
> While it might be hard to imagine the Internet and the DNS going away,
> if anybody has a 5 1/4" floppy lying around, they'll be aware of how
> hard it is to get information off it these days as 5 1/4" drives are
> scarce as hens teeth -- the only one in my department is in an old PC
> that is connected to the network. The digital library community seem
> particularly sensitive to these issues, which is perhaps why they use
> handles, DOIs, and ARK.
>
> Regards
>
> Rod
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> -
> ----------------------------------------
> Professor Roderic D. M. Page
> Editor, Systematic Biology
> DEEB, IBLS
> Graham Kerr Building
> University of Glasgow
> Glasgow G12 8QP
> United Kingdom
>
> Phone:    +44 141 330 4778
> Fax:      +44 141 330 2792
> email:    r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
> web:      http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html
>
> Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic
> Biologists Website:  http://systematicbiology.org
> Search for taxon names at  
> http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/
> Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
> voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------
Professor Roderic D. M. Page
Editor, Systematic Biology
DEEB, IBLS
Graham Kerr Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QP
United Kingdom

Phone:    +44 141 330 4778
Fax:      +44 141 330 2792
email:    r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
web:      http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html

Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic
Biologists Website:  http://systematicbiology.org
Search for taxon names at http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/
Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org

------_=_NextPart_001_01C626B6.4DFD5429
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2654.45">
<TITLE>RE: [TDWG-GUID] identifiers for geologic samples</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Rod,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Great points.&nbsp; I agree with you.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>I just think the dilemma lies in the desire to make GUIDs locatable.&nbsp; I think the Handle system presumes that somewhere a &quot;switchboard&quot; is being maintained that maps the handles to a URL.&nbsp; Who has the funds and resources to serve up this switchboard and most importantly maintain it for millions of GUIDs?&nbsp; If those resources are available, then using a centralized redirection system like Handle avoids the complications you describe.&nbsp; But, without those central administrative resources, then institutions will map their own GUIDs and to my mind the simplest and most doable way to do that is just using a URL-based approach, similar to LSID.&nbsp; It's a compromise to get things moving.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Chuck</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Roderic Page</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: 2006/01/30 12:50</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: [TDWG-GUID] identifiers for geologic samples</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Dear Chuck,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Nobody that I'm aware of is suggesting replacing the DNS (least of all&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>me). Any solution that gets implement anytime soon will of course use&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the Internet. Handles use the Internet in their current implementation,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>indeed anytime you look up a DOI, or follow a link in a journal that's&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>marked &quot;CrossRef&quot;, you use handles.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>It's just that:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>(a) I'm a little wary of including Internet addresses in GUIDs, more&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>because the implied link to a site may disappear if the site&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>dies/moves/changes name. Yes there are mechanisms to deal with this,&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>but having an Internet address has the potential to mislead. Imagine if</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>records served by MOBOT start to get served by, say, the New York&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Botanical Garden. What will users think of resolving an LSID with&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>mobot.org in the name and getting a different server. A generation&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>brought up with phishing scams (<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing" TARGET="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing</A>),</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>and taught to check a URL is really what it says it is might get&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>nervous.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>(b) I'm not seriously arguing the DNS or the Internet are going away&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>anytime soon, however I think it is interesting that this is a concern&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>voiced by the people who are probably closest to us in mindset -&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>digital librarians. They care deeply about curation, have rare, old,&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>culturally valuable artefacts, and want systems that persist beyond&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>current fashions and/or technologies. Sound familiar? If so, let's ask&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>why have they gone for things like handles?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Regards</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Rod</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>On 28 Jan 2006, at 14:25, Chuck Miller wrote:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Although the Internet may change in the future and none of us have a&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; crystal ball, some method for turning names (gbif.org) into network&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; addresses (192.38.28.79) will be required.  For the forseeable future</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; that method on the Internet will almost certainly be DNS. The cascade</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; of the global DNS server network is key to making the Internet work. </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; No matter what URL you put into your browser, the DNS network finds&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; its way to the IP address of the server.  Trillions of dollars of&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; commerce now depend upon this global standard. I think the analogy is</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; more like the teletype machines and the ASCII codes they used. &nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Although we have Unicode now, it still includes ASCII. In&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; communications, the new must continue to support the old.  This can be</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; seen in the W3C projects that continue to build upon the previous&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; standards.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; To replace the Internet's global DNS locator service with something&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; unique to biodiversity seems like a complex, expensive and long-term&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; proposition.  For the sake of getting things done in a timely manner,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; I think we need to keep things simple and leverage the pieces of the&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; puzzle that already work.  Implementing a GUID scheme is going to be&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; tough enough without tackling a replacement for DNS.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; An issue that needs to be decided by the workshop is how much&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &quot;abstraction&quot; of a GUID is absolutely necessry if it must also be&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; locatable through the Internet?  That is, is a compromise needed to&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; allow embedding of domain names in order to enable use of the DNS to&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; locate GUIDs.  Surely there is insufficient time, funds, and staff to</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; embark upon creation of a master switchboard (database) where the&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; locations of millions of GUIDs are recorded and updated in perpetuity.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Chuck Miller</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Missouri Botanical Garden</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;  </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; From: Roderic Page</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; To: TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Sent: 1/28/2006 2:58 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Subject: Re: [TDWG-GUID] identifiers for geologic samples</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; On 28 Jan 2006, at 01:02, Richard Pyle wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; The more I think about it, the more I think this is the sort of&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; system</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; would work well for our field.  A centralized issuer (which could</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; issue</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; blocks of thousands or millions of numbers at a time),</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; The major problem I see with this is that a central registry may be a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; rate limiting step because it has to allocate blocks, it would also</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; decide for format of the last part of the identifier (which the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; provider might not find desirable), and it may well lead to lots of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; wasted identifiers (e.g., it allocates 100,000 to me, but I use 3 off</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; them).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Would it not be better to devolve this? You can still have a central</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; registry. For example, Handles and DOIs work by having a central</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; registry for the prefix (e.g., &quot;1018&quot;) and the provider is responsible</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; for allocating the suffix locally.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; I'm not sure how wise it would be to create a new syntax standard,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; rather</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; than go with one of the ones we've discussed.  But if (for example)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; using</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; LSID, I personally think it would be preferable to establish a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>highly</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; generic form, such as:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; urn:lsid:gbif.org:BioGUID:12345</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Without wishing to preempt some of the things I'm going to present at</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; the workshop, I'm going off LSIDs a little because of their reliance</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>on</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; the Internet DNS. Apart from the hassle of mucking with the DNS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>records</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; to set them up (I suspect not every provider is going to find this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>easy</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; to do), it assumes that the Internet its present form is going to be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; here forever, and it also embeds information in the identifier (e.g.,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &quot;gbif.org&quot;) that currently has meaning, but over time may loose</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; meaning, or worse, be positively misleading (say if GBIF goes belly up</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; and somebody else serves the data).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Handles (including DOIs) and ARK have no information in the identifier</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; (perhaps not strictly true for some DOIs, but that's by choice not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; design), and also in principle don't need the internet. In the future</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; some other mode of information transport may come along, and they</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>could</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; still be used.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; While it might be hard to imagine the Internet and the DNS going away,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; if anybody has a 5 1/4&quot; floppy lying around, they'll be aware of how</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; hard it is to get information off it these days as 5 1/4&quot; drives are</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; scarce as hens teeth -- the only one in my department is in an old PC</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; that is connected to the network. The digital library community seem</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; particularly sensitive to these issues, which is perhaps why they use</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; handles, DOIs, and ARK.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Regards</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Rod</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>----------------------------------------------------------------------- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; ----------------------------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Professor Roderic D. M. Page</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Editor, Systematic Biology</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; DEEB, IBLS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Graham Kerr Building</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; University of Glasgow</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Glasgow G12 8QP</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; United Kingdom</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Phone:    +44 141 330 4778</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Fax:      +44 141 330 2792</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; email:    r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; web:      <A HREF="http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html" TARGET="_blank">http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; reprints: <A HREF="http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html" TARGET="_blank">http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Biologists Website:  <A HREF="http://systematicbiology.org" TARGET="_blank">http://systematicbiology.org</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Search for taxon names at&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; <A HREF="http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/" TARGET="_blank">http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Find out what we know about a species at <A HREF="http://ispecies.org" TARGET="_blank">http://ispecies.org</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; ___________________________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; voicemail <A HREF="http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com" TARGET="_blank">http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>------------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>----------------------------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Professor Roderic D. M. Page</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Editor, Systematic Biology</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>DEEB, IBLS</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Graham Kerr Building</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>University of Glasgow</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Glasgow G12 8QP</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>United Kingdom</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Phone:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; +44 141 330 4778</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Fax:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; +44 141 330 2792</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>email:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>web:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <A HREF="http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html" TARGET="_blank">http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>reprints: <A HREF="http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html" TARGET="_blank">http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html</A></FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Biologists Website:&nbsp; <A HREF="http://systematicbiology.org" TARGET="_blank">http://systematicbiology.org</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Search for taxon names at <A HREF="http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/" TARGET="_blank">http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Find out what we know about a species at <A HREF="http://ispecies.org" TARGET="_blank">http://ispecies.org</A></FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>


More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list