Its taken a little while but in answer to Donalds question, for us here at Landcare Research:
1. Is your data organised using taxon names or to taxon concepts?
Our taxonomic data is represented by taxon concepts. First by a concensus concept of a preferred name+synonyms+ taxonomic reference (this includes misapplied names, i.e incongruent taxon concepts), and we also track alternate taxon concepts through name/synonmy linkages recorded from the literature.
2. Do you assign any reusable identifiers to taxon names or concepts (i.e. identifiers used in more than one database)?
We use guids to link to name strings. A bit of history here - first we were using a U(nique)Pk counter, then we changed to using a UUID (128 bit hex computer generated number), and now we are starting to use LSIDs. We have a taxonomic names web service that provides names lists to external users of our databases, and these are identified by our LSID. (note: we do not currently have a working LSID resolver/authority set up for our LSIDs, but are in the process of doing so). However, these guids are applied only to the name strings that comprise the taxon concept and are not applied to the ensemble of names representing a concept.
3. If so, what is the process in assigning new identifiers for additional taxa and for accommodating taxonomic change?
We assign UUIDs to any new names, and our LSID is just our Landcare namespace + this UUID. All names may be cross-linked linked to existing names, eg IsBasionymOf ID, IsReplacedNameOf ID, IsBlockedBy ID, IsParentOf ID, IsSanctionedBy ID etc. In our 'concensus' view all of these names are stored within the same database table with recursive concensus parent linkages. We keep all history of editorial changes to names and their linkages.
However, it is recognised that we need to maintain additional GUIDs that identify the ensemble of names representing our 'concensus' taxon concept and that we need to maintain and be able to resolve the time-dependent changes to the concepts. Here we have the difficulty of persuading our end-users (e.g. the curators of collection databases), that they should be using such resolvable concept GUIDs rather than name string guids. We envisage a compromise where some linked datasets maintain a name string guid (the concensus preferred name) and a resolvable taxon concept guid where appropriate.
4. Where are these identifiers used (other organizations, databases, data exchange, recording forms, etc.)?
The name string GUIDs are used within many interoperable linked databases maintained by our organization (collections, surveys, phylogeny, attributes, descriptions, images, keys, bibliographies). We also provide an externally accessible taxonomic names web service that used by a number of regional agencies to maintain their own authoritative list of names integrated into their own information systems.
5. Do you use identifiers from any external classification within your database?
Yes. Landcare Research is a member of the IndexFungorum partnership. The fungal names in our system are derived from, and kept in synchrony with the IndexFungorum global nomenclator. This is achieved by maintaining inks between our GUIDs and the LSIDs assigned to IndexFungorum entries.
6. Would there be any social or technical roadblocks to replacing these identifiers with a single identifier that was guaranteed to be unique?
Yes. We are the creators and maintainers of both nomenclatural and taxonomic data. We would be unhappy about any resolution mechanism that didn't acknowldge our IP in that process. For example, if the LSID contained another organisation's namespace when we were the originators/editors of that entity.
Kevin
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++