On 6/2/07, Weitzman, Anna WEITZMAN@si.edu wrote:

[7 related examples omitted ....]

Either each of these (1-7) will need to have its own LSID (or an equivalent in the case of the specimen itself) or they will all need to have the same LSID. If the former, they will all have to resolve to the same parent LSID--is this for the specimen or the record in its home database?--in order for the overall biodiversity information system to really work.

In an earlier posting today, I said I don't know what Anna means by "parent LSID", but here I will take a guess because if right, it relates to a problem put on the table last year at the Edinburgh GUID workshop and never resolved. I suspect what is meant is that there is something needing a GUID, e.g. an element deep in a highly marked-up legacy publication, and that the resolution for that GUID should clearly show the relation to the GUID of the thing containing it.

The general issue is how should the GUIDs of parts of composites be related to the GUID of the composite, and how should it be determinable that the relation is that of component to composite. As in my earlier posting, this is probably easily described in the TDWG ontology and perhaps needs mainly a recommendation of how to do so. Or maybe there already is.

Bob Morris