Hi Patricia,
Many thanks for the feedback (and thanks also to Bob -- who I neglected to thank in my previous post).
What do you reckon would be the limiting social and financial factors for full mirrors? In social terms, if I'm going to expose my data to the world anyway (e.g., via DiGIR), then I don't see why I would be socially reluctant to allow others to mirror the data (provided robust syncronization protocols are in place -- see my previous response to Bob; and provided data "ownership" credentials are embedded within the core metadata).
As for financial, I prefaced my original post with the observation of ever decreasing $/GB for storage space. I suspect that, before TDWG nails down the GUID protocols, entry-level web servers (of the sort that even the most modest DiGIR provider would need to establish) will come with nearly a TB of disk storage space by default. Perhaps the cost of bandwidth will be a limiting factor? Or maybe DB software capable of managing such large datasets?
As for IPR -- well, ultimately that applies mostly to specimens. And again, assuming that "ownership" metadata remains intact, I see no basis for increased apprehension about allowing mirrored copies of data records (as GBIF already does, for example) over and above exposing them in the first place.
Personally, I don't think the social, legal, or financial barriers are significantly greater for a mass-mirror paradigm than they are for distributed complementary data sets. I suspect the major barriers will be more technical (i.e., those aforementioned "robust syncronization protocols").
Aloha, Rich
-----Original Message----- From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project [mailto:TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On Behalf Of Patricia Mergen Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:31 PM To: TDWG-GUID@LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU Subject: Re: RDF query and inference in a distributed environment
Dear Richard
I agree with you that several mirror copies will and are needed, preferably well spread geographically as back-ups. This is exactely the approach of GBIF, as they are now in the process to mirror their services.
However as highlighted by Bob Morris their is are social, but also financial barriers to have all contributing institutions run a "full" mirror. In order to insure the participation of all those who are willing to, I believe that a distributed system where each provider can participate with his part should be kept. Those who have the ressources could of course set up full mirrors if this match their needs and if this is allowed by the providers (there are also IPRs issues which may be raise here by some institutions).
Patricia
Richard Pyle deepreef@BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG wrote:
Long term what I think might happen is that users have their own triple stores, and as they do queries the results get added to their own triple store and they can make inferences locally that they are interested in. MIT's Piggy bank project (http://simile.mit.edu/piggy-bank/) is an example of this sort of approach.
With hard drive sizes spiraling skyward, and $/GB ($/TB) spiraling downward.... I'm wondering whether or not the "distributed" system that serves us best might be "distributeded mirror copies", rather than distributed complementary data. I've been pushing this approach for taxonomic data for a while, but perhaps it would be useful for other shared data as well (geographic localities, people/agents, publications/references, etc.) Even for specimen data -- where "ownership" is unambiguous -- it seems that as long as the ownership is clearly embedded in the core metadata, there are more fundamental advantages in storing and serving data from multiple data resources, rather than serving it from only one single data resource.
One way to look at it would be "robust caching", with automated update capabilities. The main benefits would be:
1) Large-scale distributed backup of the world's biodata (ensuring perpetuity across a changing technological landscape); 2) Performance and reliability enhancement for local data authority needs; 4) Essentially 100% data availability (like DNS), regardless of which servers are up or down at any given moment; 3) Maximization of distributed work/effort for data "maintenance and repair".
The point is, the technology discussions would focus less on issues of distributed queries, and more on issues of replication/synchronization and data edit authorization protocols.
Perhaps this would be reaching too far, too soon. But on the other han d, I don't see why implementing a "distributed mirror" system would be any more technically, financially, or socially challenging than implementing a distributed query system for distributed data.
Aloha, Rich
Richard L. Pyle, PhD Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences and Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817 Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef@bishopmuseum.org http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html
Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.