One of the core elements of the data domain we work in is the names we apply to life on this planet we occupy with nM other species. Two big international project working in this domain are GBIF and EoL. Both are investing in a Global Names Architecture (probably to the order of $50k to date). At the core of this (pilot implementation) are UUIDs. If these two projects (and by implication those who would use the data and services they provide ... IUCN, FAO, WHO, the two 'invasives' projects [alien invasives are one of the biggest threats to loss of biodiversity - I've heard people say] etc)want the GNA to work is it not in their interest to implement the most appropriate GUID technology to tie the names (a very very very small but important part of the data domain) to the rest of the biodiversity data they serve/manage/mobilize?
I guess we have taken the small step and got something going - we decided to go with LSIDs. I'm not sure why the TBWG LSID resolver keeps breaking (I'm not that much of a techie but I do know that if something isn't broken don't try to fix it). As to other GUIDs ... didn't we reject DOIs because of the 'real'**[see below] cost - or can I get the 500k DOIs I need for Index Fungorum for no real cost, the 1.5M I need for the British Fungi database I look after in my spare time for no real cost, or can 'we' get the nnnM DOIs we need to assign to our natural history collections as they are digitized, at no real cost ... can the DOI supporters answer this? And if the use of DOIs are not without real costs to use why are we still discussing them?
Another two penn'orth, and time to get back to real work ... ;-)
Paul
** real cost is when you have to reach into your pocket and part with cash, unreal cost (a.k.a. hidden cost) is what I'm doing now ... CABI is paying my salary but I'm not really doing what CABI pays me to do ... ;-)
-----Original Message----- From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Beach, James H Sent: 08 April 2009 13:23 To: Roger Hyam; Donald.Hobern@csiro.au Cc: morris.bob@gmail.com; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] SourceForge LSID project websites broken - Resonatewith Roger
I resonate with Roger :-).
More than anything else, these functions in our community needs an economic model. Possibilities include an inspired foundation to endow it or hitchhiking with a bigger community with the long-term support already planned and working. Giving up some technical independence and compromising on short-term technical objectives should not get in the way of getting something going, one small step at a time.
It is interesting to see where long-term vision comes from at a global community level. We have organizations big and small, national and international who are naturally preoccupied with supporting their own requirements, as we all are.
But where are the biodiversity heroes with resources?
_____________________________ James H. Beach Biodiversity Institute University of Kansas 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence, KS 66045, USA T 785 864-4645, F 785 864-5335
________________________________
From: tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org on behalf of Roger Hyam Sent: Wed 4/8/2009 4:57 AM To: Donald.Hobern@csiro.au Cc: morris.bob@gmail.com; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] SourceForge LSID project websites broken - role for TDWG?
General comments on decision making...
This is a technical discussion list. We are clever techie people. Given a challenge of X resources and Y requirements we can come up with a preferred list of solutions and probably implement one of them with our eyes closed.
To use a fine English idiom "you cut your cloth to suit your purse". We don't have a shared purse so arguments about how to cut our cloth will never be resolved. X is undefined and I am not sure Y is that well defined.
I know this is "chicken and egg" in that we need to come up with requirements to request a purse but we really need to have some indication that some one will be willing to commit long term resources to the common good before we can present a menu of choices for what money could be spent on.
1.0 developers/year (in perpetuity) gets us a server or two managed to support some kind of DNS based SRV hosting or redirect services or Handle system with support for some library development and help desk stuff. (Note I am not talking servers or meetings or reports or technology and I am talking commitment to pay people to have it as their responsibility to maintain the system both socially and technically - for the long term!!!).
Without the indication that some one (a consortium perhaps) is likely to formally commit to a minimum of this level of resources we are wasting our time talking about resolution mechanisms that are not DNS based i.e. variations on the PURL model.
If we don't have the money to build a walled garden we have to graze on the common with everyone else.
Roger
(BTW: I am not totally convinced that building a walled garden is the way forward but would happily come and graze in it if some benefactor would fund its perpetual maintenance).
On 8 Apr 2009, at 01:40, Donald.Hobern@csiro.au wrote:
A few comments on semantic opacity...
- My examples ("urn:lsid:csiro.tdwg.org:anic:12345") were
deliberately transparent (or at least translucent) to make it easier to follow the example, but I would have no real problem with them having a form more like "urn:lsid:bio-id.org:9876:12345".
- I think a single-minded drive towards semantic opacity would be as
quixotic and self-destructive as anything we could do. UUIDs are nicely opaque, and we could build a DOI-like system which maps individual UUIDs to their current locations. Such an approach would be painful and an administrative nightmare. I also suspect that such opaque identifiers would be resisted by most users. If we step away from such a pure implementation, the alternatives all embed some kind of semantic cues which make the system operate better. The form of a DOI encodes relevant data on the source of the object. PURLs and LSIDs do the same. The point with semantic opacity in the LSID specification is that it is not possible for a client to make inferences about the location of data based on the subelements within the LSID. It is up to the resolver implementations to determine how to return the data. Once this point is accepted, I would in fact say that the presence of some semantic clues within the identifier text is
a good thing. The clues may for various reasons no longer conform to the reality of how the metadata are managed, but a user may still rapidly glean relevant indications whether an identifier is worth resolving (it may indicate that it relates to a nomenclatural record, or that it, at least originally, was minted by some respected source).
I see such clues as having the same kind of value which has enabled Linnaean nomenclature to persist so long. My preference for LSIDs would therefore be for them to be like the ones Roger minted for BCI.
- I also note that this discussion has suggested remarkable near-
unanimity from many people in their distaste for LSIDs. However I fear that the level of agreement would be little higher if we were discussing DOIs, or PURLs. Some of the objections have been that LSIDs do not fit well with the key technologies of the semantic web and that something more like PURLs would be the right course to follow. Other objections have related to the semantic near- transparency of many LSIDs or the absence of strongly centralised support with the implication that something more like DOIs would be better. Both arguments have value, but they point in different directions. The various identifier schemes make up a landscape within
which no identifier scheme represents an adaptive peak in all contexts. We need to develop applicability statements for how to use several of these schemes as alternatives for biodiversity data and we need to identify the drivers which may guide different providers to different schemes for different purposes.
Donald
Donald Hobern, Director, Atlas of Living Australia CSIRO Entomology, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601 Phone: (02) 62464352 Mobile: 0437990208 Email: Donald.Hobern@csiro.au Web: http://www.ala.org.au/
-----Original Message----- From: Bob Morris [mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 8 April 2009 2:04 AM To: Roderic Page Cc: Hobern, Donald (Entomology, Black Mountain); Roger Hyam; tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] SourceForge LSID project websites broken - role for TDWG?
A few non random comments on Rod's random comments on Donald's proposal
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Roderic Page r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk wrote:
A few random comments:
Donald wrote:
InstitutionCode/CollectionCode/CatalogueNumber triple and to the three main substitutable elements in an LSID. Some systems such as DOI may obscure the whoGeneratedTheData
Rod responded:
This assumes that it's good to have lots of metadata embedded in the identifier. This level of "branding" might be fine for specimens (assuming each data provider has the ability to serve their own data), but what about shared identifiers such as taxon names -- I suspect having to "choose a brand" is going to be an obstacle to adoption for just the identifiers that we most need to share. Identifiers such as DOIs have less branding (although publishers have
managed to attach branding significant to the few digits after the "10." prefix).
Bob cites: "LSIDs are intended to be semantically opaque, in that the LSID assigned to a resource should not be counted on to describe the characteristics or attributes of the resource that the LSID refers to. The users of the LSIDs are permitted to use individual components (as specified elsewhere in this document) of LSIDs - although the LSID component parts themselves should be treated as opaque pieces of the identifier." LSID spec, Section 8.
It's regrettable that the LSID spec is so poorly written that it permits the useless term "should". Alas, I suppose that leaves room for argument with my position that LSIDs with embedded metadata are not LSIDs--they are something else based on the LSID syntax. There's nothing inherently wrong with, oh, say, a Handles implementation based
on prefacing LSID syntax with something controlled. See below.
Rod remarks:
Note also that DOIs (and Handles) can be queried for metadata, see Tony Hammnd's OpenHandle project (http://www.crossref.org/CrossTech/2008/10/the_last_mile.html and http://code.google.com/p/openhandle/), so we don't need to embed
this in the actual identifier itself.
Bob replies DOIs \are/ Handles. This is the (unstated?) reason that http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/GUID/TechnologyComparison is filled with comparisons of the form "DOI: Same as Handles"
DOI is an implementation of Handles, with the additional treatment of things about which Handles is silent . See http://www.doi.org/factsheets/DOIHandle.html When I read that document casually, I come to the initial conclusion that Donald's proposal is essentially doing the same kind of extension to Handles (possibly a Good Thing if correct), except for allowing metadata in the identifier (yech!).
--Bob
-- Robert A. Morris Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston ram@cs.umb.edu http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html phone (+1)617 287 6466 _______________________________________________ tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
_______________________________________________ tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
_______________________________________________ tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag ************************************************************************ The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited.
Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.
**************************************************************************