Hmmm, we are in trouble. It seems that placing the "record" in the LSID metadata is gaming the system. An observation record of a bird, is on some real sense data. We can say it is metadata about the bird but this is not data about data under that use, it is data about an object, that instance of a bird at that point in time. I would prefer not to treat the record as abstract. We can not put the observation record into the metadata because metadata has the nice property of allowing us to change the form. The LSID metadata should tell us the semantics of the data. If we use the metadata to save the record we need meta-metadata to save the semantics.
From page 10 of the spec: "bytes getData (LSID lsid) This method is used to return data associated with the given lsid. If a copy of the data represented by an LSID cannot be returned for any reason, an exception should be raised. If the given lsid represents an abstract entity (a concept), this method returns an empty array of bytes. Note that the semantics of the returned bytes is not defined by this specification. It is either known from an external documentation, or (preferably) it is available by reading the metadata for this particular lsid. "<----
As Dave points out. The bit identity constraint is a problem when XML is a payload. Current TDWG standards do not enforce a particular canonical form for the XML documents. They could when being carried by data in LSID. That additional constraint or specification would need to be carried in the metadata.
-- Bryan
PS: Someone should send a medic to Chuck's office. Chuck is likely under his desk pulling out his hair muttering something about never "doing" anything.