[tdwg-guid] Handle System considered not interoperable with standard WWW and SW applications

Roderic Page r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Wed Jun 6 16:08:28 CEST 2007


Dear Donald,

I agree things need to be built, and on that level having LSIDs would  
be a major improvement on where we are now (i.e., virtually nothing has  
a GUID, excepting taxonomic names and a fraction of the literature).

The reality is that whatever we do, there will be a mixed environment  
of LSIDs, Handles, DOIs, HTTP URIs, etc., and rather messy signals from  
various groups (internal and external) about what approach is best.

I don't want discussion to impede progress on getting things done, so  
I'll keep schtum ... wish there was a smiley for suppression of intense  
fidgeting.

Regards

Rod





On 6 Jun 2007, at 14:46, Donald Hobern wrote:

> Rod,
>
> I know we disagree on this one, and I certainly don't want to force  
> the issue against everyone else's better judgment but I think the  
> critical issue is that we need to get moving with trying something  
> seriously and for real.  Switching technology later should not be too  
> painful once we get the basic principles right (and the basic  
> principles are the same quite independent of technology).
>
> Some quick points.
>
> 1. In answer to your latest question, the (non-technical, more social)  
> issues I mentioned in my previous message are the key reasons I would  
> give for choosing something other than HTTP URIs.  We are dealing with  
> a wider community than just IT professionals and need to make a clear  
> separation between assigning an identifier and putting up a web page.
> 2. LSIDs occupy a space (in my thinking) somewhere between the open,  
> easy, hard-to-control world of HTTP URIs, and the potentially  
> over-centralised administratively heavy world of Handles and DOIs.
> 3. If we go with LSIDs and subsequently decide we should just use HTTP  
> URIs, we can do so immediately and easily using a proxy like the one  
> TDWG has set up.
> 4. If we go with HTTP URIs and subsequently decide we should use  
> something like LSIDs, it is likely to be significantly harder to clean  
> up the mess.
>
> Right now we are in a position where a good number of projects has  
> converged on giving LSIDs a serious try.  I honestly believe we should  
> build on this and start learning how to use GUIDs in the real world.   
> We can all debate options forever (and go around in circles: "LSIDs  
> are better than URIs because..." - "Handles are better than LSIDs  
> because..." - "URIs are better than Handles because..."), but we must  
> get down to providing some working solutions.
>
> Thanks as ever,
>
> Donald
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Donald Hobern (dhobern at gbif.org)
> Deputy Director for Informatics 
> Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat 
> Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
> Tel: +45-35321483   Mobile: +45-28751483   Fax: +45-35321480
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Roderic Page wrote:
>
>> This all begs the question, is there anything LSIDs give us that HTTP  
>> URIs don't?
>>
>> If we go to all this trouble to make LSIDs behave as if they were  
>> HTTP URIs, isn't this tell us something...?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Rod
>>
>>
>> On 6 Jun 2007, at 14:13, Ricardo Pereira wrote:
>>
>>> Roderic Page wrote:
>>>> Ricardo,
>>>>
>>>> I think your arguments pretty much apply to LSIDs as well. By  
>>>> themselves, they don't play ball with the WWW or the Semantic Web.
>>>>
>>>> For LSIDs we need a proxy that understands SOAP, can talk to the  
>>>> DNS, read WSDL files, and then do an HTTP look-up. You only get  
>>>> LSIDs to play ball by using a proxy that plays ball.
>>> I agree. That's why we are putting forward the LSID HTTP proxy  
>>> recommendations  
>>> (http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/GUID/ 
>>> LsidHttpProxyUsageRecommendation). And there will be at least one  
>>> LSID proxy (that at http://lsid.tdwg.org/) that will play ball  
>>> pretty soon. That proxy all that you said, just doesn't perform the  
>>> content-negotiation bit yet. But I'm currently working on that.
>>>>
>>>> In principle we can do the same sort of thing for Handles (there is  
>>>> code for a proxy servlet at  
>>>> http://www.handle.net/proxy_servlet.html).
>>> Only if handle types fully matched the standard WWW content types.  
>>> They could match if we defined handle types for our own community,  
>>> but they won't ever match with the types defined by other  
>>> communities like DOI and others using Handles.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, LSID spec allows us to implement standard content  
>>> negotiation seamlessly because the semantics of the argument  
>>> *accepted_formats* in the LSID getMetadata call is appropriate for  
>>> that purpose.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not necessarily defending Handles, but I think our choice needs  
>>>> to be well-informed. I still don't think the case for LSIDs has  
>>>> really been made (or, at least, some of the arguments advanced in  
>>>> favour of LSIDs apply equally well, if not better, to other  
>>>> technologies).
>>> I agree with you on this. The case for LSIDs wasn't strong enough  
>>> because the original proposal doesn't integrate well with HTTP. That  
>>> is exactly why we are putting forward the LSID HTTP proxy proposal.  
>>> It was the missing point in the LSID case.
>>>
>>> In any case, I suppose we will talk more about this in the near  
>>> future.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Ricardo
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tdwg-guid mailing list
>>> tdwg-guid at lists.tdwg.org
>>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> ------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> iChat: aim://rodpage1962
>> 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: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/
>> Find out what we know about a species: http://ispecies.org
>> Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
>> Rod's rants on ants: http://semant.blogspot.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tdwg-guid mailing list
>> tdwg-guid at lists.tdwg.org
>> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
----------------------------------------
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
iChat:    aim://rodpage1962
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: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/
Find out what we know about a species: http://ispecies.org
Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
Rod's rants on ants: http://semant.blogspot.com




More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list