[tdwg-guid] LSID on subobjects of composite objects
morris.bob at gmail.com
Sat Jun 2 21:50:05 CEST 2007
On 6/2/07, Weitzman, Anna <WEITZMAN at si.edu> wrote:
>[7 related examples omitted ....]
> Either each of these (1-7) will need to have its own LSID (or an equivalent in the case of the specimen itself) or they will all need to have the same LSID. If the former, they will all have to resolve to the same parent LSID--is this for the specimen or the record in its home database?--in order for the overall biodiversity information system to really work.
In an earlier posting today, I said I don't know what Anna means by
"parent LSID", but here I will take a guess because if right, it
relates to a problem put on the table last year at the Edinburgh GUID
workshop and never resolved. I suspect what is meant is that there is
something needing a GUID, e.g. an element deep in a highly marked-up
legacy publication, and that the resolution for that GUID should
clearly show the relation to the GUID of the thing containing it.
The general issue is how should the GUIDs of parts of composites be
related to the GUID of the composite, and how should it be
determinable that the relation is that of component to composite.
As in my earlier posting, this is probably easily described in the
TDWG ontology and perhaps needs mainly a recommendation of how to do
so. Or maybe there already is.
More information about the tdwg-tag