I think it would be best to completely ignore the idea LSID data, unless we have a strong use case for it. (I'm pretty sure we came to this conclusion after the GUID meetings). All "required" information should be in the metadata.

The other issue here is how to "create" an LSID - what to use for the Object part of the LSID. If we use, for example, accession numbers, then the LSID does get "tied" to a particular dataset/database/organisation (the problem of moving objects from one organisation to another was also covered in the GUID meetings - see the GUID pages on the Wiki and the guid mailing list history for some rich discussion on these topics). So long as this issue has been considered when creating LSIDs, and they are guaranteed unique, I dont particularly see the problem with using the "accession number".

Kevin

...

...

"Paul Kirk" p.kirk@cabi.org 06/02/07 10:14 PM >>>

Yes Rich, our plan is to apply the LSID to the accession 'number' (actually an accession 'code' as we have an historical legacy of suffix 'a', 'b', etc for subdivisions of the original collection which in many cases is a collection of objects rather than one physical object - a bag of leaves for example). And yes, there are some possible problems with errors associated with the metadata but ... in the cotenxt of a DBMS where the accession number is set to unique values only, duplications are in reality impossible, and yes there are far more important challenges to address than this ... ;-)

I assume you are correct about the 001100010011001000110011001101000011010100110110 ... I'm a systematist leaning towards nomenclature rather than an IT person.

I guess the 'change of ownership' comment was directed at the importance of retaining the accession number as this is cited in the literature, and the utility of keeping this as a resolvable LSID.

A rather complex model is required for 'managing' the objects of a collecting event and what subsequently happens to those objects, which others have more experience of and valid opinions on - I refer, for example, to a pit trap for insects where multiple objects are assigned an initial accession number, the objects are subsequently divided and divided again and again and finally a few may end up on pins as name bearing types.

Cheers,

Paul

________________________________

From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef@bishopmuseum.org] Sent: Sat 02/06/2007 10:08 To: 'Paul Kirk'; 'Jason Best'; tdwg-guid@lists.tdwg.org Subject: RE: [tdwg-guid] First step in implementing LSIDs?[Scanned]

Paul and List,

First, I should clarify something about my earlier post. I wrote at the start of Scenario 3:

"3) Issue data-less LSIDs without using the revision ID feature, and track data change history separately from the LSIDs"

That should have been "...and track *metadata* change history separately from the LSIDs" (metadata, not data).

So, without making things too complicated as we 'start to walk' in this domain of biodiversity informatics my vote is for a variation of scenario 3) from Rich. The reason I vote for this is that in the fullness of time, and the 'herb.IMI' database has already started this, much of the metadata with be LSIDs and it's correctness (i.e. sorting out typos etc) will be delegated to the entities who issue those LSIDs. As IPNI improves the quality of the metadata associated with the LSIDs they issue (and if I understand correctly they do use the scenario 3) from Rich) so the quality of the metadata associated with a 'herb.IMI' LSID improves. The reason I prefer the data + metadate 'model' is that in this instance the data is fixed ... who changes collection/accession numbers? ... so perfect for this role. Even if a collection moves to a new owner the original data need not 'disappear' in the same way that DOI's move with the objects as book and journal titles change from one publisher to another.

So...if I understand correctly, you differ from my scenario 3 in that you do generate data-bearing LSIDs for specimens, but the data part is limited to only the Accession number, not the complete set of data fields associated with the record -- correct? So, in effect, the object LSID actially applies to is the binary accession number, not the "concept" of the specimen. I can imagine in this case that the LSID can be thought of as representing the "concept of the specimen" because the accession number itself is a surrogate for the physical specimen. The only thing that concerns me about this approach is that there is a non-zero incidence of accidental duplicate catalog numbers within a given collection, and possibly errors in associating catalog numbers. For example, if the computer database for a collection had an error created by a technician who, for example, entered the metadata for accession number IMI1234569 by mistake, when it should have been IMI1234596 (and vice versa), then branding the accession number as "data" for the LSID means that the LSID technically *must* stay with the accession number (not the specimen associated with the metadata for that LSID), after the error is discovered. Not a huge problem, but could surprise people who had indexed the LSID before the error was discovered, who then came back to resolve it again after the error was fixed (i.e., they would get totally wrong information). Given how rare this problem is likely to be (against a backdrop of many far more likely problems we will have to overcome), I don't see this as a strong reason not to proceed with your plan.

Final point, the 'data' is the 'herb.IMI' accession number; in context this is a GUI because of the existence of Index Herbariorum. So, our data will be 123456 not IMI123456 because ... in the fullness of time we will include an Index Herbariorum LSID to 'identify' the 'institutional acronym' element of the metadata.

Is the binary data for the accession number in 8-bit, or 16-bit? I'm assuming 8-bit would be fine, as I suspect all collections would have accession numbers that can be rendered with 256-character ASCII. Is there any "wrapper" to the number as binary data, or is it a straight ASCII binary representation (e.g.: 001100010011001000110011001101000011010100110110 for "12345")?

I'm not sure I follow the logic of how embedding the accession number as data for the LSID allows the LSID to move to a new owner. I would think the opposite. Isn't it likely that the new owner would create their own accession number for the specimen? In this case, they would be forced to generate a new LSID if they were following the same practice of encoding the accession number as "data", rather than metadata.

Also, wouldn't it make more sense to include the acronym (IMI) as part of the data for the LSID? At least that way the "12345" would have *some* context.

Finally, this approach would work only for collections where there is a strict 1:1 correlation between accession numbers and specimen objects for which an LSID is desired.

Thanks for your comments -- this thread is already forcing me to think about things in a way I hadn't thought of them before.

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

************************************************************************ 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.

**************************************************************************

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be read, used, copied or disseminated by anyone receiving them in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by return email and delete this message and any attachments.

The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the official views of Landcare Research.

Landcare Research http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++