<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:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-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;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</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-AU link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText>I can't hold off commenting on this discussion any
longer. Apologies for the tome of accumulating thoughts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>As noted, there are three aspects to recent discussions
about GUIDs - the techie (easy?) bits, the social (harder?) bits and the funding/financial
(hardest?) bits.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>I was at the two TDWG funded meetings to decide on an
appropriate GUID for the biodiversity informatics community. The (wide-ranging)
group decided to support LSIDs. A number of us subsequently rounded up a
library of resources (<a href="http://wiki.tdwg.org/GUID/">http://wiki.tdwg.org/GUID/</a>)
and drafted quite a few documents (<a
href="http://www.tdwg.org/activities/guid/documents/">http://www.tdwg.org/activities/guid/documents/</a>)
including the LSID Applicability Statement (the application of an existing
standard to our domain). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Ricardo Pereira (among a host of other work) setup the
SourceForge site (http://lsids.sourceforge.net/) and that is the ONLY TDWG LSID
resource that is currently down. It is down because SourceForge changed their
website<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>provider configuration (with previous notice) that broke
our setup, and we were not able to restore it - but we are working on it (minus
Ricardo - which is why the delay). To quote Ricardo: "Important
pieces of the LSID infrastructure were never off-line, not even for a minute in
the last year or so. Examples: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://lsid.tdwg.org/">http://lsid.tdwg.org/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><a
href="http://lsid.tdwg.org/summary/urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:11815">http://lsid.tdwg.org/summary/urn:lsid:ubio.org:namebank:11815</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><a
href="http://lsid.tdwg.org/summary/urn:lsid:ubio.org:classificationbank:1164063">http://lsid.tdwg.org/summary/urn:lsid:ubio.org:classificationbank:1164063</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><a
href="http://lsid.tdwg.org/summary/urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:names:213649">http://lsid.tdwg.org/summary/urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:names:213649</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><a
href="http://lsid.tdwg.org/summary/urn:lsid:gdb.org:GenomicSegment:GDB132938">http://lsid.tdwg.org/summary/urn:lsid:gdb.org:GenomicSegment:GDB132938</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><a
href="http://lsid.tdwg.org/summary/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:30000959-2">http://lsid.tdwg.org/summary/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:30000959-2</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The actual LSID infrastructure, including the TDWG LSID
resolver and the LSID authorities listed there have always been operational, as
you can see from the links above. The open source community website that
supports software developers involved in implementing LSID clients and
resolvers also was never off-line:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/lsids">http://sourceforge.net/projects/lsids</a>
(open source collaboration site) <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><a
href="http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=198923">http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=198923</a>
(downloads)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://lsids.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lsids/">http://lsids.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lsids/</a>
(version control - subversion)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><a
href="http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=lsid-developer">http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=lsid-developer</a>
(LSID developer forum)"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>As has been stated previously, the 'social' aspects
involved in the uptake of standards is important. As Jim said, TDWG develops
standards (not software or an implementation service). We assume
end-users have the skills to use the standards or that companies such as ETI (that
are thin on the ground) can provide a service. This has drawn criticism. It is
not an easy call as we are already spread far too thinly. We have also previously
missed addressing the needs of the managers of the people in TDWG (who hold the
purse strings and who make decisions). I did commission ‘executive
summaries’ of most of the TDWG ‘standards’ (including at
least three on LSIDs) but I agree that we need to consider deployment before a
new TDWG standard is released.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>One of my responsibilities as part of the TDWG
Infrastructure Project (TIP) was to consider a funding model for TDWG. I found
it amazing that an organization in TDWG’s position has so few members.
TDWG develops<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>standards for sharing biodiversity information. Most of
us know just how central that is (as has been stated) for work such as GBIF,
CoL, EoL, ALA, EDIT, OBIS, ITIS....and all museums, herbaria etc (a hell of a huge
community!!). In ‘biodiversity’, we are also talking about one of
the planets key resources! <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>When TIP started, TDWG had 23 individual members and 17
institutional members. Amazing isn't it!? Why? Maybe because of the small
original overlap of let's call them ‘biotypes’ with Information
Technologists? TDWG started as a club of IT inclined biotypes playing with
databases. The explosion of IT has radically changed that. TDWG is still at a point
where the biotypes can't easily understand the few (unbelievably valuable and
overworked!) people with IT skills that TDWG had fortunately attracted.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>I know that some people have not joined TDWG because they
see it as 'bureaucratic': To quote Rod Page and Nike "...Just do
it...". I'm convinced that TIP's restructured TDWG has addressed that.
Movement is now far more dependent on the individual than the committee - and
we can't do better (or worse) than that. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>It was obvious to me that we needed to build TDWG
membership before we look to Sugar Daddies or more handouts. With a substantial
membership, we make a stronger case to potential supporters, and we can better spread
the load. In 2008, we had 32 Individual members and 47 institutional members -
better but still a very small percentage of the catchment of those who should
be supporting TDWG in some form. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>In discussing financial models, I would like to single
out GBIF's support of TDWG. TDWG has a special relationship with GBIF. TDWG does
have an excess of servers that can be used for infrastructure such as mentioned
(thanks to TIP). These servers are housed and supported by GBIF. We GREATLY
appreciate this considerable support.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>How does all of this relate to the LSID discussion?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>1. As an Australian media personality likes to say
"It is better to have people inside the tent pissing out than outside
pissing in." This on two counts. A decision was made to try and implement
LSIDs. A lot of work has<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>been done toward that goal. The LSID Applicability
Statement forms a foundation for general GUID use. If we decide something is
better, evolution should not be a major hassle. Donald, as the Chairman of TDWG
also deserves our support (will anyone else out there take on the role?). Ben
Richardson has taken on the role of Review Manager of the LSID Applicability
Statement. When it goes to public review (hopefully soon), do what you can to
make the document a useful foundation for future developments. Please be
constructive.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>2. Do what you can to assist TDWG to build the membership
and to spread the (considerable) load. A hybrid financial model is a foregone
conclusion. Full stop. We need a substantial membership to fund infrastructure
support (as has been discussed). Medium to long-term funding support from
external agencies to support infrastructure is almost impossible. We also need
substantial additional funding for specific projects that probably can't get
done without it. Right now we are desperate for an effective tool for
building/discussing/maintaining a TDWG ontology. TDWG is going to be increasingly
dependent on an effective ontology. Unless I’m blind, this project should
be in good position to attract special funding. LSID (or other GUID)
infrastructure looks equally important.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Lee<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Lee Belbin<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>TDWG Secretariat<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>