Bob, Well, like I said. There are many sides and many proponents. It would be great to see something accomplished, rather than endlessly debated.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Bob Morris [mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 11:46 AM To: Chuck Miller Cc: Hilmar Lapp; Robert Guralnick; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; tomc@cs.uoregon.edu; John Deck Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] delimiter characters for concatenated IDs
Chuck
Hilmar is not proposing a service for management of all identifiers, he is proposing discovery of existing, preferably resolvable and dereferanceable, identifiers based on queries for specimen record metadata such as DwC triplets, together with minting of resolvable ones when none is discoverable. Except on performance grounds---and possibly not even then--- this does not even require all the discoverable identifiers be held on the same machine as the proposed service is hosted, nor even on a single machine at all.
Hilmar's proposal, which I concur is useful and simple to accomplish, is independent of the quality, syntax, specification or utility of the returned identifiers, all of which are much argued in this thread and in this list from the beginning of time. Producing such a service is not beyond the skills required for an assignment in an undergraduate software engineering course and certainly could be accomplished in a few days' hackathon such as Hilmar proposes. As with any discovery service, its ultimate utility depends on the minters promoting underlying discoverability of the identifiers themselves. But that too is fairly trivial and well-understood, e.g. by the listing of them in resolvers' SiteMaps in published ways that major spiders can find and index them. An example is [1].
[1] Sitemap Formats and Guidelines https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/183668?hl=en
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller@mobot.org wrote:
Hilmar,
A “global” resolver that manages globally unique resolvable identifiers for every single specimen record in the world (billions?) as a web-service should be operated by a hosting facility with a global charter and globally funded resources. That is the definition of GBIF to my understanding. What other specimen/observation repository has greater critical mass to “mint” and maintain GUIDs for all the world?
Chuck
From: hilmar.lapp@gmail.com [mailto:hilmar.lapp@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Hilmar Lapp Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 9:47 AM To: Robert Guralnick Cc: Chuck Miller; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org; John Deck; tomc@cs.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] delimiter characters for concatenated IDs
I couldn't agree more.
I would also ask why there still isn't a global resolver as a web-service that takes specimen metadata as input (such as the DwC triplet) and returns globally unique resolvable identifiers, minting them if necessary. If the technologically savvy people of this community came together, this could be built at least as a prototype in a couple of days. As I've suggested to iDigBio before, they could hold a hackathon on this, commit to hosting and further developing the outcome, and the problem would be solved once and for all. It would arguably be fully within their mandate.
If instead of the many workshops that have been held on talking about the problem we as a community would finally will ourselves to actually solving it, that part really isn't so difficult.
-hilmar
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Robert Guralnick Robert.Guralnick@colorado.edu wrote:
We've been examining the use (ad mis-use) of the DwC triplet, and how that propagates out of local portals and platforms into other ones. The end message from this work (and I am happy to share the manuscript and all the datasets we have compiled and examined) is that it is a _terrible_ choice for a global unique identifier.
There are so many better choices, that don't rely on delimiters or on what is ultimately a non-globally unique, non persistent, non resolvable choice for a (permanent, resolvable, globally unique) identifier. As opposed to having this conversation, I wonder why we aren't having one about ALL the other more rational choices...
Best, Rob
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Chuck Miller Chuck.Miller@mobot.org wrote:
Markus,
Didn’t we reach a general consensus within the last couple of years that the vertical pipe (|) was the preferred concatenation symbol?
Chuck
From: tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-content-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Markus Döring Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 8:49 AM To: "Dröge, Gabriele" Cc: tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] delimiter characters for concatenated IDs
Hi Gabi,
can you explain a little more what you are trying to do giving an example maybe?
It appears to me you are creating (globally) unique identifiers on the basis of various existing fields which is fine. But when you use the identifier to create resource relations they should be considered opaque and you should not need to parse out the underlying pieces again. So in that scenario the character used to concatenate the triplet does not really matter for the end user as long as its unique and points to some existing resource, indicated by the occurrenceID in case of occurrences or the materialSampleID for samples.
Best,
Markus
On 05 May 2014, at 15:24, Dröge, Gabriele g.droege@BGBM.ORG wrote:
Hi everyone,
I guess there might have been some discussions about proper delimiter characters in the past that I have missed.
In several projects, first of all in GGBN (Global Genome Biodiversity Network, http://www.ggbn.org), there is a need for making a decision now. We need to reference between different records and databases and within Darwin Core we want to use the relatedResourceID to do so.
During our GGBN workshop at TDWG last year we agreed on concatenating the traditional triple ID (Catalogue Number, Collection Code, Institution Code) and add further parameters if required too (e.g. GUID, access point). We have checked those parameters and can definitely not use a single character as delimiter.
So my question to you is, if there are already some suggestions on using two characters together as delimiters. It would be great if we could find a solution more than one community could agree on.
Otherwise I would like to open the discussion and suggest "\", "||", "|", "§|", "§§", or "\§".
Best wishes,
Gabi
Gabriele Droege
Coordinator - DNA Bank Network
Global Genome Biodiversity Network (GGBN)
Berlin-Dahlem DNA Bank
Women's Officer ZE BGBM
Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem
Freie Universität Berlin
Koenigin-Luise-Str. 6-8
14195 Berlin
Germany
+49 30 838 50 139
www.dnabank-network.org
www.ggbn.org
www.bgbm.org
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
--
Hilmar Lapp -:- informatics.nescent.org/wiki -:- lappland.io
tdwg-content mailing list tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
-- Robert A. Morris
Emeritus Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd Boston, MA 02125-3390
Filtered Push Project Harvard University Herbaria Harvard University
email: morris.bob@gmail.com web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/ web: http://wiki.filteredpush.org http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram === The content of this communication is made entirely on my own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or Harvard University.