I like the idea in principle, but I would do it directly with the "technically astute" organizations and let them keep the modest revenue. More precisely, I think managing something that is deemed a critical resource should be done in an organization that has professional staff to do it if possible GBIF seems the most broadly connected to TDWG. That's where I would do it. In fact, aren't they already managing some TDWG services?<br>
<br>Bob<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Dave Vieglais <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vieglais@ku.edu">vieglais@ku.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I'm not sure if anyone has suggested this strategy (I'll be surprised<br>
if not):<br>
<br>
TDWG seems determined to use LSIDs for GUIDs, yet the technical issues<br>
for implementation are discouraging enough for some to defer<br>
deployment. Perhaps TDWG could offer as a bonus for membership (or<br>
perhaps a small additional charge) the provision of some elements of<br>
the LSID infrastructure stack, overloading the <a href="http://tdwg.org" target="_blank">tdwg.org</a> domain?<br>
<br>
Then, instead of having each institution create DNS entries such as<br>
"<a href="http://mydepartment.institution.org" target="_blank">mydepartment.institution.org</a>" and deal with the SRV details, use TDWG<br>
as a kind of registrar and do something like<br>
"<a href="http://mycollectionid.tdwg.org" target="_blank">mycollectionid.tdwg.org</a>". TDWG would then be responsible for the<br>
appropriate DNS SRV registration, and could even operate a resolver<br>
and/or redirection service for that domain.<br>
<br>
The income would not be very much (say $10/year per org * 100<br>
participants = $1k), but it should be a lot less expensive for the<br>
entire community than the total cost for each organization operating<br>
their own infrastructure (perhaps $10/year DNS + $1000/year operations<br>
* 100 participants = $101k).<br>
<br>
So as not to overload the TDWG infrastructure, it would be sensible to<br>
encourage technically astute groups (e.g. GBIF, EoL, NCEAS) to<br>
contribute computing cycles and fallback DNS services to ensure<br>
reliability of the entire system.<br>
<br>
The end result could be a reliable, distributed infrastructure for<br>
LSID (or whatever GUID scheme is decided upon) resolution that<br>
conforms to the requirements / specifications derived from the TDWG<br>
procedures at a small cost for participation. The low cost and<br>
deferral of technical overhead to a knowledgeable group would<br>
hopefully encourage participation by a broader audience in this piece<br>
of fundamental architecture.<br>
<br>
(It may also help reduce the endless cycles of discussion about GUIDs<br>
and LSIDs)<br>
<br>
Dave V.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
tdwg-tag mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag" target="_blank">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Robert A. Morris<br>Professor of Computer Science<br>UMASS-Boston<br><a href="mailto:ram@cs.umb.edu">ram@cs.umb.edu</a><br><a href="http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/">http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram">http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram</a><br><a href="http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html">http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html</a><br>phone (+1)617 287 6466<br>