Hello, please see my comments inline below. I will try to use PURLs not only in the purl.org sense, but also as a simple way of creating stable URLs through a centralized URL redirection. If you consider this I cant see relevant benefits of LSIDs that are not shared by PURLs. Considering the potential problems we might run into with any software framework (not only RDF) that includes resolving I am in strong favor of simple URLs.
-- Markus
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] Im Auftrag von Kevin Richards Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Mai 2006 13:45 An: tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Betreff: Re: [Tdwg-tag] Why we should not use LSID
Roger
I agree that PURLs are a perfectly good option for our GUID needs, and that they would probably be one of the easier technologies to get "working".
Like you I really had to think again to work out the benefits of LSIDs over PURLs, expecially considering the disadvantage you have mentioned.
Some of the benefits of LSIDs include:
- clearly separate data and metadata services (as you have mentioned)
MD: From what I've understood from the GUID group nearly only metadata is used though. So if we deal with metadata only then its not a big practical difference at least.
- separation from domain names - as far as I understand, the PURL still requires domain name resolution of the actual ID url to obtain the resolution server address - this ties you to a particular url format
MD: We could easily setup a redirection service http://purl.gbif.net/AUTHORITY/whatever that redirects to whereever you want to keep your resolver. Just the authority URL part needs to be centrally managed.
MD: This leads me to a questions about LSIDs which I never understood. LSID are bound to domain name resolution and their guarantee to be globally unique is heavily based on DNS. So to me a central body keeping track of LSID authorities is required to guarantee life long uniqueness of LSID URNs. If "bgbm.org" is owned by someone different that also wants to set up a LSID authority, how does he know there was one already under that domain? He could be reissuing the same URN (LSID) again. Thats exactly what people use as an argument against URLs, but its also true for LSIDs as far as I understand the technology.
- LSID assigning service can be managed by provider organisation ("ownership" of data and IDs is often high on a data provider's requirements list)
MD: so can PURLs
- LSIDs provide a "standard" technology for resolving and serving up data objects - ie every provider will have the LSID authority services running on their server that will serve up data and metadata (+ other services if required) in the same way, for every provider
MD: URLs are even more standard I would think. Take Apache and there you go.
- related to the previous point, a standard mechanism for third party annotations of LSIDs is provided with every LSID server implementation
MD: Annotea (for RDF) uses simple HTTP. As Rod said pingbacks are a way to go as well (over http). And I am sure there are many other standards existing for URLs.
- same URN LSID can be used for resolution of http, ftp, soap and tcp protocols (unsure how PURLs handle this?) ...other cool stuff, I'm sure, that I cant think of right now - too late at night
MD: true. but is that needed?
Probably best to avoid LSIDs for RDF class identfiers etc, but do the semantic web tools you are talking about have no way of recognising different url resolution types - I'm wondering if you can "plug in" lsid resolution into these tools?
MD: that would surely be good. I have no experience with RDF frameworks, but everywhere I look I see URIs that are in fact URLs.
Kevin
Roger Hyam roger@tdwg.org 05/03/06 10:29 PM >>>
Hi Rod,
From the meeting report - which I am struggling to get back to - these two bullet points sum it up I think
· There are certain things for which LSIDs are not appropriate. It would be legal to use them for RDF resource identifiers for controlled vocabularies and XML Schema locations BUT we would have to extend existing software libraries to do this which is not desirable.
· *Recommendation:* LSIDs are not used for controlled vocabularies, ontologies or XML Schema locations. LSIDs should be used to refer to instances.
Basically it was felt that if we used LSIDs for things like rdfs:Class definitions then any library that went off to fetch the definitions automatically would have to be extended so that it understood LSID resolution. On the other hand it was felt that use of LSIDs for real resources (things we are actually describing like specimens and people) was fine. Once an ontology is loaded then it is all fine though so to an extent this may be a false problem.
We spent a long time talking about what is part of the ontology and what isn't and went round in circles (please lets not do it again). Basically class and property descriptions should be URL type URIs but instance URIs can be LSIDs. If you want to define the genus /Rhododendron/ as being an OWL DL class retrieved remotely then you should probably give it a URL. If you want to define it as a data item then use a LSID.
I think Gregor's worries (correct me if I am wrong Gregor) are that in SDD (possibly our whole domain) many things could be considered classes and properties. i.e. Things you want your reasoner to use in the reasoning rather than simply reason about. In this case it may be better to have URLs for everything.
There is a niggling doubt (in my mind) that we may come across 'cool' tools and libraries that assume that *all *resource URIs are URLs and that we would not be able to use them or would need to extend them if we use LSIDs. Imagine a semantic web browser where you click on a node and it fetches the associated resource to expand itself.
I do occasionally struggle to see the advantages of LSIDs as GUIDs over just conventions for use of URLs but these may be matters of personal faith. Another bullet point in the report says:
· *Recommendation: *GUIDs Group should issue a document clearly justifying adoption of GUID technology. The advantages need to be clearly explained.
I'll try and get this report out ASAP but it looks very similar to the wiki page here:
http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/TAG/TagMeeting1ReportDraft
Obviously would be grateful for your thoughts.
Roger
Roderic Page wrote:
Dear Gregor,
For the benefit of those not at TAG 1, can you please explain why "LSIDs are not interoperable with semantic web technologies"?
Regards
Rod
On 2 May 2006, at 16:44, Gregor Hagedorn wrote:
Note that part of my concern about the use of concept when talking about classes/properties/data elements is that I more and more believe we will want to use ontology reasoners for uses other than software design, i.e. as part of what we currently consider data (taxon names, concepts, rank hierarchy, parts of organisms, properties of organisms, etc.). All these are ontological concepts, and efforts www.plantontology.org do use OWL to reason on them.
The SDD presentation (the one not held in EDI, attached) contained some examples how we might want to query our data - in ways that OWL-for-software- design seems not to cover - and which using LSIDs would even prevent.
Please discuss:
http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/TAG/WhyWeShouldNotUseLSIDs
http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/TAG/UsePURLsAsGUIDs
Gregor
Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn@bba.de) Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA) Königin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203
The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
---- File information ----------- File: SDD-TAG1.ppt Date: 23 Apr 2006, 18:10 Size: 1056768 bytes. Type: Unknown <SDD-TAG1.ppt>_______________________________________________ Tdwg-tag mailing list Tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag_lists.tdwg.org
--
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@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: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/ Find out what we know about a species: http://ispecies.org Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Tdwg-tag mailing list Tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag_lists.tdwg.org
--
Roger Hyam Technical Architect Taxonomic Databases Working Group
http://www.tdwg.org roger@tdwg.org
+44 1578 722782
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments.
The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of Landcare Research.
Landcare Research http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tdwg-tag mailing list Tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag_lists.tdwg.org