A side remark, about where I believe the whole discussion is misleading:
Puma concolor se:v6n7p That way in the future if the name changes without a change in the concept. Eupuma concolor se:v6n7p The data says linked.
This always looks nice... However, with such proposals we, the computer guys, make the concept-assessment someone elses problem (i.e. the taxonomists, ecologists, pathologist, etc.), and, at the same time, do not provide them the means to communicate. The assumption is that a scientist or applied worker would know whether to add se:v6n7p to a given taxon name or not.
With my taxonomer/pathologist hat on: I mostly have no clue which concept XXX concolor is - and whether it is changed or not. Puma concolor may be a different concept than Puma concolor. We are, of course, guilty of communicating in a shamefully loose way (s.str., s. lat. etc.), which could and should be improved by citing a secundum, but beyond that: mapping concepts is a taxonomic opinion, no objective truth.
So given that any trivial mapping mechanism can map multiple IDs (Puma concolor, Eupuma concolor) to a single concept - the proposal saves this trivial processing time, but does not contribute to the problem of communicating in a way that is suitable to assess taxon concepts.
----
Aside: Please compare the highly linked, and generally correctly linked Wikipedias with other content management system for the advantage of human legible IDs [[Puma concolor]] over http://x.y.net/node/234872561 - links. My own observation is that in the latter case only a fraction of the desirable links are created, and that these are quite often going to wrong, or perhaps obsoleted places.
I therefore think: se:Puma_concolor_sec._Smith would be a much more useful mechanism than all the computer-scientists-only proposals like se:v6n7p or http://gni.globalnames.org/name_strings/772d5162-f5aa-596c-98e0-a1c6c5a29bb9
Gregor