Pyle, R.L. 2002. Pomacanthidae. pp. 3266-3286. In: Carpenter, K.E. and V.E.
Niem (Eds.) Living marine resources of the western central Pacific. Volume
5. Bony fishes part 3 (Menidae to Pomacentridae). Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. i-iv+2791-3379.
...there are at least three "levels" of publication:
1) Pyle, R.L. 2002. Pomacanthidae. pp. 3266-3286.
2) Carpenter, K.E. and V.E. Niem (Eds.) Living marine resources of the
western central Pacific. Volume 5. Bony fishes part 3 (Menidae to
Pomacentridae). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), Rome. i-iv+2791-3379.
3) Carpenter, K.E. and V.E. Niem (Eds.) FAO species identification guide for
fishery purposes: Living marine resources of the western central Pacific.
Vols. 1-6. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
Rome. xl+4218 pp.
Granted, some might argue that number 3 is not really a separate citable
"unit", but given that it is a single page number series, I would argue that
it is.
So...if we wanted to cite specifically Pyle 2002, the parentCitationString
might simply be the contents of of #2 above; or it might have two nested
parents (a parent, and agrand parent).
As I said before, I'm leaning towards the simpler solution.
Isn't this over engineering things a little? Don't you just need a GUID for the chapter (1), and a GUID for the book (2)? For the latter we have an ISBN (9251043879), so there's already a GUID for that. I don't think we gain much from (3). Furthermore, if we use the ISBN as the GUID we know the items are linked because they share the same publisher code.
As for the ZooBank LSID resolver -- at this point in time conformance trumps
optimization (so we can all get off our collective arses and serve content)
-- so I'm just woking with what's up there now. If I'm resolving LSIDs, and
I'm doing so because of TDWG standards, then I ought to conform to existing
TDWG standards on vocabularies -- right or wrong. What we need to do is
update the TDWG standards on this (which the St. Lousi meeting was
attempting to accomplish), so we can conform *and* optimize!
The TDWG standard should need to be expanded to handle other kinds of GUIDs, notably Handles, which are being widely used in Digital Repositories.
Professor Roderic D. M. Page