Dear all,
Since the infrastructure at TDWG and elsewhere is in place for LSID, I think I would address this issue not by defining a new standard that is a clone of LSID except with a different definition of getData(), but rather think about whether there can be stuff in the getMetadata() calls and returns that permit an assertion by the callee that some bit
Maybe a workaround would be to add a fingerprint (hash key) of the delivered data to the metadata? At least it would be transparent for the client if two clients deliver different data.
In general I think the discussion (and also the discussion on persistence) should again bring up the question whether it should be considered to introduce some kind of trustworthyness certificate for LSID providers. Doesn't the reliability of immutability of data and persistence lastly depend on the trustworthyness of the data provider? I think of for example the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) model which is now ISO standard (ISO 14721). Btw. The model distinguishes between data object (bit stream) and representation information. Which if applied to LSIDs would help in the immutabiliy problem. N.B.: because it must _of course_ be within the responsibility of a data center to adopt the representation form of a digital object to the needs of its users, e.g. it would make no sense to continue to deliver early 80-ties StarWriter formatted documents!
Best regards, Robert