January 2006 - tdwg-tag - lists.tdwg.org

Re: identifiers for geologic samples
by Roderic Page 28 Jan '06

28 Jan '06

On 28 Jan 2006, at 01:02, Richard Pyle wrote: > The more I think about it, the more I think this is the sort of system > that > would work well for our field. A centralized issuer (which could issue > blocks of thousands or millions of numbers at a time), The major problem I see with this is that a central registry may be a rate limiting step because it has to allocate blocks, it would also decide for format of the last part of the identifier (which the provider might not find desirable), and it may well lead to lots of wasted identifiers (e.g., it allocates 100,000 to me, but I use 3 off them). Would it not be better to devolve this? You can still have a central registry. For example, Handles and DOIs work by having a central registry for the prefix (e.g., "1018") and the provider is responsible for allocating the suffix locally. > I'm not sure how wise it would be to create a new syntax standard, > rather > than go with one of the ones we've discussed. But if (for example) > using > LSID, I personally think it would be preferable to establish a highly > generic form, such as: > > urn:lsid:gbif.org:BioGUID:12345 Without wishing to preempt some of the things I'm going to present at the workshop, I'm going off LSIDs a little because of their reliance on the Internet DNS. Apart from the hassle of mucking with the DNS records to set them up (I suspect not every provider is going to find this easy to do), it assumes that the Internet its present form is going to be here forever, and it also embeds information in the identifier (e.g., "gbif.org") that currently has meaning, but over time may loose meaning, or worse, be positively misleading (say if GBIF goes belly up and somebody else serves the data). Handles (including DOIs) and ARK have no information in the identifier (perhaps not strictly true for some DOIs, but that's by choice not design), and also in principle don't need the internet. In the future some other mode of information transport may come along, and they could still be used. While it might be hard to imagine the Internet and the DNS going away, if anybody has a 5 1/4" floppy lying around, they'll be aware of how hard it is to get information off it these days as 5 1/4" drives are scarce as hens teeth -- the only one in my department is in an old PC that is connected to the network. The digital library community seem particularly sensitive to these issues, which is perhaps why they use handles, DOIs, and ARK. Regards Rod ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- Professor Roderic D. M. Page Editor, Systematic Biology DEEB, IBLS Graham Kerr Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QP United Kingdom Phone: +44 141 330 4778 Fax: +44 141 330 2792 email: r.page(a)bio.gla.ac.uk web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org Search for taxon names at http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/ Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: identifiers for geologic samples
by Chuck Miller 28 Jan '06

28 Jan '06

Although the Internet may change in the future and none of us have a crystal ball, some method for turning names (gbif.org) into network addresses (192.38.28.79) will be required. For the forseeable future that method on the Internet will almost certainly be DNS. The cascade of the global DNS server network is key to making the Internet work. No matter what URL you put into your browser, the DNS network finds its way to the IP address of the server. Trillions of dollars of commerce now depend upon this global standard. I think the analogy is more like the teletype machines and the ASCII codes they used. Although we have Unicode now, it still includes ASCII. In communications, the new must continue to support the old. This can be seen in the W3C projects that continue to build upon the previous standards. To replace the Internet's global DNS locator service with something unique to biodiversity seems like a complex, expensive and long-term proposition. For the sake of getting things done in a timely manner, I think we need to keep things simple and leverage the pieces of the puzzle that already work. Implementing a GUID scheme is going to be tough enough without tackling a replacement for DNS. An issue that needs to be decided by the workshop is how much "abstraction" of a GUID is absolutely necessry if it must also be locatable through the Internet? That is, is a compromise needed to allow embedding of domain names in order to enable use of the DNS to locate GUIDs. Surely there is insufficient time, funds, and staff to embark upon creation of a master switchboard (database) where the locations of millions of GUIDs are recorded and updated in perpetuity. Chuck Miller Missouri Botanical Garden -----Original Message----- From: Roderic Page To: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Sent: 1/28/2006 2:58 AM Subject: Re: [TDWG-GUID] identifiers for geologic samples On 28 Jan 2006, at 01:02, Richard Pyle wrote: > The more I think about it, the more I think this is the sort of system > that > would work well for our field. A centralized issuer (which could issue > blocks of thousands or millions of numbers at a time), The major problem I see with this is that a central registry may be a rate limiting step because it has to allocate blocks, it would also decide for format of the last part of the identifier (which the provider might not find desirable), and it may well lead to lots of wasted identifiers (e.g., it allocates 100,000 to me, but I use 3 off them). Would it not be better to devolve this? You can still have a central registry. For example, Handles and DOIs work by having a central registry for the prefix (e.g., "1018") and the provider is responsible for allocating the suffix locally. > I'm not sure how wise it would be to create a new syntax standard, > rather > than go with one of the ones we've discussed. But if (for example) > using > LSID, I personally think it would be preferable to establish a highly > generic form, such as: > > urn:lsid:gbif.org:BioGUID:12345 Without wishing to preempt some of the things I'm going to present at the workshop, I'm going off LSIDs a little because of their reliance on the Internet DNS. Apart from the hassle of mucking with the DNS records to set them up (I suspect not every provider is going to find this easy to do), it assumes that the Internet its present form is going to be here forever, and it also embeds information in the identifier (e.g., "gbif.org") that currently has meaning, but over time may loose meaning, or worse, be positively misleading (say if GBIF goes belly up and somebody else serves the data). Handles (including DOIs) and ARK have no information in the identifier (perhaps not strictly true for some DOIs, but that's by choice not design), and also in principle don't need the internet. In the future some other mode of information transport may come along, and they could still be used. While it might be hard to imagine the Internet and the DNS going away, if anybody has a 5 1/4" floppy lying around, they'll be aware of how hard it is to get information off it these days as 5 1/4" drives are scarce as hens teeth -- the only one in my department is in an old PC that is connected to the network. The digital library community seem particularly sensitive to these issues, which is perhaps why they use handles, DOIs, and ARK. Regards Rod ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- Professor Roderic D. M. Page Editor, Systematic Biology DEEB, IBLS Graham Kerr Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QP United Kingdom Phone: +44 141 330 4778 Fax: +44 141 330 2792 email: r.page(a)bio.gla.ac.uk web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org Search for taxon names at http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/ Find out what we know about a species at http://ispecies.org ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: identifiers for geologic samples
by Richard Pyle 27 Jan '06

27 Jan '06

Thanks, Matt -- this is really interesting! The more I think about it, the more I think this is the sort of system that would work well for our field. A centralized issuer (which could issue blocks of thousands or millions of numbers at a time), with no inherent categoriziation of what "kind" of object the number is assigned to (taxon name, taxon concept, specimen, population, dataset, collection, defined locality, publication instance, agents, etc.). Then we manage the relationships/links among the objects via controlled vocabulary/ontology and metadata (as we discussed at some length back in November). I'm not sure how wise it would be to create a new syntax standard, rather than go with one of the ones we've discussed. But if (for example) using LSID, I personally think it would be preferable to establish a highly generic form, such as: urn:lsid:gbif.org:BioGUID:12345 -or- urn:lsid:tdwg.org:BioGUID:12345 Or, if GBIF/TDWG are not generic enough, then something like: urn:lsid:biologicalregistry.org:BioGUID:12345 Where the "biologicalregistry.org" is perhaps initially established by TDWG or GBIF, but can be perpetuated by whomever, if circumstances suggested it. Aloha, Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project > [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On Behalf Of Matt Jones > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 1:56 PM > To: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > Subject: identifiers for geologic samples > > > The earlier discussion on samples was valuable, especially regarding the > subsample/part-of issues when samples are taken apart and the > relationships need to be maintained. I saw a talk in the last two weeks > by Kerstin Lehnert about the use of identifiers for geologic samples. > They seem to have many of the same issues that we do for biological > samples. They have created a system called the "International Geo > Sample Number", which is a centralized sample registration service. > Interestingly, they invented their own syntax rather than using a > standard like LSID or DOI. I though it might be interesting background > for those of you going to the meeting next week: > > http://www.geosamples.org/ > > and here's a fossil plant sample as displayed in their registry: > > http://www.geosamples.org/applications/sesarSearch/view_sample.jsp > > Matt > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Matt Jones Ph: 907-789-0496 > jones(a)nceas.ucsb.edu SIP #: 1-747-626-7082 > National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) > UC Santa Barbara http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

identifiers for geologic samples
by Matt Jones 27 Jan '06

27 Jan '06

The earlier discussion on samples was valuable, especially regarding the subsample/part-of issues when samples are taken apart and the relationships need to be maintained. I saw a talk in the last two weeks by Kerstin Lehnert about the use of identifiers for geologic samples. They seem to have many of the same issues that we do for biological samples. They have created a system called the "International Geo Sample Number", which is a centralized sample registration service. Interestingly, they invented their own syntax rather than using a standard like LSID or DOI. I though it might be interesting background for those of you going to the meeting next week: http://www.geosamples.org/ and here's a fossil plant sample as displayed in their registry: http://www.geosamples.org/applications/sesarSearch/view_sample.jsp Matt -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Matt Jones Ph: 907-789-0496 jones(a)nceas.ucsb.edu SIP #: 1-747-626-7082 National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) UC Santa Barbara http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data
by Kevin Thiele 27 Jan '06

27 Jan '06

Please see the GBIF-GUID wiki (http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=GUIDsForDescriptiveData and links therefrom) for a summary of the discussions so far on use of GUIDs for descriptive character data. Cheers - Kevin Thiele

1 0

Re: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data
by Kevin Thiele 26 Jan '06

26 Jan '06

I agree we need to capture this discussion on the wiki - can everyone hold off for a little. I'll try today to get the story so far on to the GUID wiki so we can continue from there. -k

1 0

Re: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data
by Dag Terje Endresen 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Hi, Thanks for the interesting discussion on descriptive data! This is of high relevance to the germplasm genebanks as well. Assigning a GUID to phenotype (character) would allow a statement like disease resistance measured on specimen GUID_#s1 according to the measurement method described and defined by GUID_#p1 (which could for example be percent of leaf covered by fungus or similar). Food crop phenotypes are often measured according to measurement standards defined and published by IPGRI or UPOV. I think persistent actionable GUIDs for the characters would be of great value and that we would soon see plant breeders and scientists collecting public phenotype data if the measured values (states) from different datasets are made more readily interoperable. Assigning GUIDs are however not the complete solution. The context of the measurement (like for example climate, humidity) would make the scored values incomparable without information on this modifier. I think this is addressed by SDD. Comparing phenotype states from different datasets and different context are much more challenging than uniquely identifying characters and states. But it would be one nice step in a useful direction. Cheers Dag Terje Quoting Roger Hyam <roger(a)tdwg.org>: Hi Robert, I think you restated the question well. I am afraid I have the question just now but not the answer ;) To me it seems to make more sense for a user to string concepts together to make a meaning rather than defining every possible contextual meaning. So if a central thesaurus defined flower and colour they could be strung together as a series of assertions in a descriptive document. In N3: mytaxa:rose myterms:has _:att . _:att rdf:type myterms:flower . _:att myterms:is myterms:red . There would still be room for specific complex predicates and objects to be defined centrally but in general this appears to allow for greater flexibility in an open system. It might not suite all tastes though. Roger Robert Huber wrote: > Thank you Roger! > > I heard about DELTA and SDD seems to be very interesting! So when we are thinking about GUIDs in this context I assume you would assign a GUID on the 'contextual meaning of terms'? E.g. what open means when you describe a open umbilicus? > A GUID would then direct the user to a document/ db entry which explains that ? Or would the GUID be assigned to a complete SDD description? > > best regards, > Robert

1 0

Re: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data
by Kennedy, Jessie 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Hi Folks This isn't strictly GUID stuff but we did some work on looking at character descriptions of plants and tried to find a mechanism that would help tie down the definitions of descriptions so that we might be able to compare taxon concepts based on character descriptions and looked at using id to refer to these to aid comparison in databases. Currently descriptions tend towards natural language with the same term being used in many different contexts to mean different things so rather than stay with that approach we wanted to tie the taxonomists down to some agreed terminology - but of course this was not something they wanted as it didn't give them enough freedom. So we proposed a compromise.... We tried to avoid using characters (in the traditional taxonomic sense) as a character could be too many different things and had a simple model that a description would be of a structure (which could be a part of some super structure(s) and all of which were defined) each structure had properties (e.g. length, colour etc) and one could assign values to these properties which for qualitative properties were all from a list of defined terms. What we tried to do was get a set of terms that could be defined in a general sense (and could have a GUID) and then when combined i.e. structure id + property id + value id this would have a different meaning for different instance combinations. So we could search on the character (if you like) or on any part of the character. Ok this is hard to describe here and the model is a bit more complicated than I've described, but if you're interested you could look at one of our papers. Unfortunately we haven't done any more work recently, but I still think there is an idea in there.... Jessie Paterson, T., Kennedy, J., Pullan, M., Cannon, A., Armstrong, K., Watson, M., Raguenaud, C., McDonald, S. and Russell, G. (2004). A Universal Character Model and Ontology of Defined Terms for Taxonomic Description. In E.Rahm, Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics: Proceedings of Data Integration in the Life Sciences (DILS) Leipzig 2004 LNBI 2994 63-78. : Springer Verlag. http://www.soc.napier.ac.uk/publication.php3?op=getpublication&publicati onid=5941057 Paterson, T. and Kennedy, J. (2004). Approaches to Storing and Querying Structural Information in Botanical Specimen Descriptions (c) BNCOD21 http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/BNCOD21. In L.M. MacKinnon, A.G. Burger, P.W. Trinder (Eds), 21st Annual British National Conference on Databases (BNCOD21) (pp. 80-91). Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University. http://www.soc.napier.ac.uk/publication.php3?op=getpublication&publicati onid=6056053 Pullan, M., Armstrong, K., Paterson, T., Cannon, A. and Kennedy, J. (2005). The Prometheus Description Model: An examination of the taxonomic description building process and its representation. Taxon, 543, 751-765. ISSN 0040-026 > -----Original Message----- > From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project [mailto:TDWG- > GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On Behalf Of Dag Terje Endresen > Sent: 25 January 2006 17:04 > To: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > Subject: Re: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data > > Hi, > > Thanks for the interesting discussion on descriptive data! This is of > high relevance to the germplasm genebanks as well. > > Assigning a GUID to phenotype (character) would allow a statement like > disease resistance measured on specimen GUID_#s1 according to the > measurement method described and defined by GUID_#p1 (which could for > example be percent of leaf covered by fungus or similar). Food crop > phenotypes are often measured according to measurement standards > defined and published by IPGRI or UPOV. I think persistent actionable > GUIDs for the characters would be of great value and that we would soon > see plant breeders and scientists collecting public phenotype data if > the measured values (states) from different datasets are made more > readily interoperable. Assigning GUIDs are however not the complete > solution. The context of the measurement (like for example climate, > humidity) would make the scored values incomparable without information > on this modifier. I think this is addressed by SDD. Comparing phenotype > states from different datasets and different context are much more > challenging than uniquely identifying characters and states. But it > would be one nice step in a useful direction. > > Cheers > Dag Terje > > > > Quoting Roger Hyam <roger(a)tdwg.org>: > > Hi Robert, > > I think you restated the question well. I am afraid I have the question > just now but not the answer ;) > > To me it seems to make more sense for a user to string concepts together > to make a meaning rather than defining every possible contextual > meaning. So if a central thesaurus defined flower and colour they could > be strung together as a series of assertions in a descriptive document. > In N3: > > mytaxa:rose myterms:has _:att . > _:att rdf:type myterms:flower . > _:att myterms:is myterms:red . > > There would still be room for specific complex predicates and objects to > be defined centrally but in general this appears to allow for greater > flexibility in an open system. It might not suite all tastes though. > > Roger > > > Robert Huber wrote: > > Thank you Roger! > > > > I heard about DELTA and SDD seems to be very interesting! So when we > are thinking about GUIDs in this context I assume you would assign a > GUID on the 'contextual meaning of terms'? E.g. what open means when > you describe a open umbilicus? > > A GUID would then direct the user to a document/ db entry which > explains that ? Or would the GUID be assigned to a complete SDD > description? > > > > best regards, > > Robert This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.

1 0

Re: Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data
by Roger Hyam 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Continuous characters might be something like this: mytaxa:rose myterms:has _:att1 . _:att1 rdf:type myterms:leaf . _:att1 myterms:length _.att2 _:att2 rdf:value "22" . _:att2 rdf:type myterms:oneMilPrecisionMeasurement . The blank nodes in this mean it would probably be easier to read in XML syntax. I am sure there are vocabularies out there that could be used for measurement stuff. Do we need GUIDs for the resources in this or can we just do this with old fashioned URIs? Who else used LSIDs or DOIs to do this kind of thing? I just seem to see the use of namespace type URIs. Roger Ricardo Scachetti Pereira wrote: > Bob Morris wrote: > >> I think the most debilitating issue is that GUIDs could only go on >> categorical characters (== 'enumerated' to informaticists), and maybe >> not even all of those. Absent a compelling reason, I hate to see an >> abstraction that can only be applied to certain classes of what one >> needs to talk > > Couldn't you describe (to machines), the semantics of continuous > variables (or characters) in an ontology? Still, you won't be able to > assign GUIDs to continuous characters, but does it make sense to do it? > Wouldn't it be enough to describe the character and the range of values > it can assume? I guess there must be various ontologies that model > continuous variables (measurements for example) out there. > >> >> I am about to leave for Costa Rica but will continue participating in >> such discussion as develops. I BEG, PLEAD, and IMPLORE that it be >> memorialized on a wiki. It is really hopeless to follow an email >> argument 6 months later.... > > You got it. > > Have a nice trip, Bob! > >> >> Bob >> >> >> Roger Hyam wrote: >> >>> Hi Robert, >>> >>> Characters and States are the building blocks of the DEscription >>> Language for TAxonomy (DELTA). This has been around since the 1980s and >>> is being updated as Structure of Descriptive Data (SDD) - which I am >>> fairly ignorant on but believe has the same basic notion of characters >>> and states but one of the SDD guys would be better talking about that. >>> >>> The DELTA home page is here: http://biodiversity.bio.uno.edu/delta/ but >>> seems to be down now. There is plenty on Google. >>> >>> The SDD wiki here: http://wiki.cs.umb.edu/twiki/bin/view/SDD/WebHome >>> (SDD also uses class in a different sense.) >>> >>> I think what I was saying is that the usage of classes and states does >>> not fit well with the use of a thesaurus like approach as the >>> 'traditional' meaning of these things is not clear in an open world and >>> that this may not just be a problem with DELTA style data but we may >>> come across it in other places. >>> >>> Hope this clarifies things. >>> >>> Roger >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Huber wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Roger, >>>> >>>> I could not reall yunderstand what you and Kevin mean by Characters >>>> and States. >>>> From the example you gave, it appears to be like classes >>>> (character) and attributes (states) or you want to assign GUIDs to >>>> something like Thesaurus entries? But maybe I completely misunderstood >>>> what you meant.. >>>> >>>> best regards,Robert >>>> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>> *Von:* Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project >>>> [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]*Im Auftrag von *Roger Hyam >>>> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2006 12:35 >>>> *An:* TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU >>>> *Betreff:* Characters and States and GUIDs and descriptive data >>>> >>>> >>>> Kevin mentioning Characters and States and GUIDs got me thinking >>>> and I was wondering if we could cover something along these lines >>>> before the meeting. Please excuse me if this has been dealt with >>>> on the list. I will use a Delta type illustration to my point. >>>> This may not apply to SDD so much - apologies if it doesn't but I >>>> am trying to get at a general point. My comments may be more >>>> general to GUIDs though... >>>> >>>> When we are dealing with GUIDs we are talking in an Open World >>>> model as opposed to a Closed World model. If I search Google (open >>>> world) and don't find something it isn't because it doesn't exist >>>> - it may exist but not be found for a host of reasons. If I search >>>> my local SQL DB (closed world) and I don't find something then I >>>> can safely assume it isn't there. (This may be a naive description >>>> of Open vs Close worlds but it illustrates the point). >>>> >>>> Taking this to the Characters/States model. We have a character >>>> that looks like this: >>>> >>>> Flower Colour (GUID_c01) >>>> - red (GUID_s01) >>>> - white (GUID_s02) >>>> - yellow (GUID_s03) >>>> >>>> And I score a taxon as "Rose *has* flower colour red". If I have >>>> given GUIDs to the states then I don't need to use the GUID for >>>> the character. "Rose has s01" is fine as the character is implied. >>>> >>>> Can we assume from this statement that my rose does not have white >>>> or yellow flowers? Yes - but only if it is a closed world and we >>>> know that the character never changes (or hasn't changed since the >>>> date of the assertion). If the choice when scoring had been: >>>> >>>> Flower Colour (GUID_c01) >>>> - red (GUID_s01) >>>> - white (GUID_s02) >>>> - yellow (GUID_s03) >>>> - dark pink (GUID_s99) >>>> >>>> I may have chosen "Rose has s99" of "Rose has s99 and s01" but I >>>> simply didn't have that choice before. >>>> >>>> So the thing that is troubling me is that Character/State uses a >>>> closed world model where not finding something implies that it >>>> doesn't have that attribute. In an open world system one can only >>>> draw conclusions from presence not absence. We could give GUIDs to >>>> characters and states but it doesn't get us very far as it doesn't >>>> permit us to re-use or extend them in a simple way. (sure you >>>> could build an inheritance model for characters and states but >>>> this rapidly becomes a complete ontology language of which there >>>> are a few already available!). >>>> >>>> My gut feeling is that in the long term the Character/State model >>>> doesn't transfer well into an open world model. I suspect this >>>> problem may occur in other descriptive areas where the existing >>>> model specifies noun-adjective pairs that I don't have experience >>>> of. Perhaps we could explore this a little. Perhaps my guts need >>>> straightening out! >>>> >>>> Your thoughts greatly appreciated. >>>> >>>> Roger >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------- >>>> Roger Hyam >>>> Technical Architect >>>> Taxonomic Databases Working Group >>>> ------------------------------------- >>>> http://www.tdwg.org >>>> roger(a)tdwg.org >>>> +44 1578 722782 >>>> ------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ------------------------------------- >>> Roger Hyam >>> Technical Architect >>> Taxonomic Databases Working Group >>> ------------------------------------- >>> http://www.tdwg.org >>> roger(a)tdwg.org >>> +44 1578 722782 >>> ------------------------------------- >>> >> >> -- >> Robert A. Morris >> Professor of Computer Science >> UMASS-Boston >> ram(a)cs.umb.edu >> http://www.cs.umb.edu/efg >> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram >> phone (+1)617 287 6466 >> > -- ------------------------------------- Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group ------------------------------------- http://www.tdwg.org roger(a)tdwg.org +44 1578 722782 -------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Use-case for multimedia objects
by Robert Huber 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Dear Ricardo, Bob, A good example on how multimedia obkjects can be treated can be found in some of the online journals. Unfortunately I couldn't find an example, but recently I found articles (has a DOI) which contain images each having an own DOI. The journal itself has also a DOI, a nice hierarchy. An Alternative to assigning GUIDs to each digital object, especially in cases like the JPEG example or CD ROM ISOs which can contain more than one file, would be to assign a GUID to: - a directory containing the files - a metadata description - a archive file which contains all elements. Many possibilities, and I am sure there are more, and a good example that there will be some degree of freedom in assigning GUIDs probably for every use case? best regards, Robert > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project > [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]Im Auftrag von Ricardo Scachetti > Pereira > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2006 11:57 > An: TDWG-GUID(a)LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU > Betreff: Use-case for multimedia objects > > > Dear Bob, > > At this stage, we are very interested in exploring GUID use-cases, > specially those that may impose special requirements to the system. What > you briefly described has the potential to fall into that category. > > Would you mind elaborating a bit on it? > > First of all, I think it is important to record that images and > multimedia objects in general can be represented as actual data in LSIDs > for example (as opposed as the other data objects for which we are > planning on using only metadata). > > You also raise the question of what gets a GUID, which seems to be a > recurrent issue for GUIDs in general. I would say that whatever objects > that are useful to applications can get an id. In other words, if it is > important to identify individual pieces of a composite object, then it's > fair to issue GUID to them and link them all in the metadata. The > metadata would also tell what is the object type (the whole or each > part). Is that applicable to your case? > > Finally, I don't quite understand the following sentence: "JPEG2000 > presents special problems because its serializations can have multiple > media and XML packages in a single file." Could you elaborate on it? > > Regards, > > Ricardo > > > PS.: If you'd like, you can create a new use-case directly on the GUID > Wiki, on the following page: > http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=GUIDUseCases. If you > decide to enter a new use-case in that page, you may as well create > another category for them (such as Multimedia objects or descriptive > data). If you'd rather elaborate on this on the list, I can summarize > your comments on the wiki later. > > > Bob Morris wrote: > > > Somewhere in a monitoring and/or a descriptive data breakout or both, > > don't forget to consider multimedia objects. JPEG2000 presents special > > problems because its serializations can have multiple media and XML > > packages in a single file. All are addressable with internet URLs which > > depend on the server offering the file. Which gets the GUID, the file > > object or the content pieces? This must be a generic GUID problem for > > composite objects. > > > > Sounds like an interesting party. Kevin will bring me the news when we > > meet up in Agadir. > > > > Bob > >

1 0