Dear Donald,
There is a tension here. URN-based identifiers (which include both LSIDs and DOIs) have the advantage of persisting independently of HTTP. One could argue that HTTP URIs could be treated in the same way (just strip off "http://"), but that might be thought of as cheating ;-)
Since I'm arguing for DOIs and Handles, I'm in favour of URNs. But we then have to be able to de-reference them, which today means that we need to be able to be treated as HTTP URIs, especially if we need to play ball with the the Semantic Web.
This is why I set up bioguid.info to play with things like DOIs. It acts as a proxy server that takes a URN and returns RDF (and tries to play by Semantic Web rules such as returning a 303 and redirecting to the RDF representation of an object).
My problem with LSIDs (and it kinda breaks my heart to say this given how much I've played with them) is that I don't see them offering any real advantages that outweigh the hassle of supporting their own resolution protocol, if what we ultimately need is HTTP URIs, then why go through the pain of LSID server software?
Regards
Rod
On 21 Mar 2007, at 15:38, Donald Hobern wrote:
Rod,
I'd just like to support your suggestion that DOIs are the obvious choice wherever we need a GUID for interacting with publishers or ensuring citability, and certainly for any elements which may require special handling (e.g. alternate views for subscribers and the general public).
In case there is any confusion over the outcomes of the TDWG workshops on GUIDs, the conclusion there was that different identifier models were likely to be appropriate in different situations. The general recommendation to adopt LSIDs was because they were lightweight at the time of issuing (no need to register them centrally) and could be resolved without a dependency on a single central service. At the same time, the choice of a URN-based identifier scheme rather than HTTP URIs still seems (at least to me) to be a benefit because we want to be able to assign identifiers which (at least in principle) are not tied to the current (albeit seemingly omnipresent) HTTP technologies - many of the objects we wish to identify have already had a valuable existence far longer than the Internet Age. In cases needing a more centralised and potentially robust solution, and where linkage to the publishing world is desired, DOIs are often likely to be the preferred choice.
Donald On Mar 21, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Roderic Page wrote:
Donald Hobern (dhobern@gbif.org) Deputy Director for Informatics Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Tel: +45-35321483 Mobile: +45-28751483 Fax: +45-35321480
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- 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 iChat: aim://rodpage1962 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 Rod's rants on ants: http://semant.blogspot.com