Workflow is an issue. If you want to use a common set of ids, then a person entering data must first go to that place where the common ids are curated and use that system to find/create the reference they are dealing with. If for any reason there is a problem, work stops. At the end of the day, any working system will most certainly have an internal, local table of citations.
We intend to deal with this by exposing everything with a local id. But when we get around to matching our names (etc) with other systems. we will use an OWL "sameAs" declaration - declaring that the two URIs are different semweb names for the same real-world thing (not the same thing as taxonomic synonymy).As for "creating them all", I generate ids from the Australian Plant Names Index and the Australian Faunal Directory, which obviously each have an extensive list of publications and citations. You could quite happily use our URIs/LSIDs in your data ... or you could if I had a search interface written. Which is what Greg asked me to do, back before Christmas. I should be doing that now, instead of writing this._______________________________________________If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
_______________________________________________
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content