Position of GBIF in architecture and centralization of services.
I have added two agreed issues to the TAG wiki on the basis of the discussions over the past few days. I won't add this to the end of the current threads as they are way off their original topics.
I hope they will lay some ghosts to rest so we don't have to drag them up again to often - provided we all agree on them that is!
The new points I believe we can agree on are:
*The standards architecture developed and promoted by TDWG must be entirely separate from the GBIF data portal.* Although GBIF is involved in administering the TDWG Infrastructure Project which, in turn, has recommended the establishment of the TAG this in no way implies that any technical architecture proposed by the TAG will or should give the needs of the GBIF data portal any more weight than any other individual or group within the TDWG. Any proposals made by the TAG will be accompanied by technical justifications. It should therefore be clear if proposals are being made merely to facilitate the short term work of the GBIF data portal and not for the long term benefit of all.
*Centralization of services* The TDWG architecture should not rely on any third party providing a particular piece of infrastructure indefinitely. This effectively rules out the architecture being based on any centralized data warehouse or indexing service beyond the hosting of standards files by TDWG itself - possibly as part of its collaborative infrastructure.
You can read all agreed issues here:
http://www.tdwg.hyam.net/twiki/bin/view/TAG/TagDiscussionRoadMap
I believe this closes issues of whether we are building a global system or just specifying standards that could be used to collaboratively build a global system should people feel the need to do it.
Speak now for forever hold your peace!
All the best,
Roger
I
Instead of your "rules out the architecture being based on" wording, I would prefer to see "rules out the architecture limited to":
This effectively rules out the architecture being limited to centralized data warehouse or indexing service beyond the hosting of standards files by TDWG itself - possibly as part of its collaborative infrastructure.
What I really believe is that warehousing and indexing should certainly be supported use cases, but so should be the kinds of direct queries otherwise discussed. In fact, I suspect that what one will find is that the warehousing and indexing requirements will come down to exactly those for direct queries PLUS appropriate support for caching support (e.g. data validity contracts), provenance and maybe access control. The idea of separating those three in discussion is appealing to me because I suspect they are orthogonal to each other and to the other data storage and exchange issues. GBIF's experience will be valuable about "what got left out" in expanding the original distributed dreams (DiGIR, BioCase) into contemporary centralized realities. Central vs. distributed information processing and data provision is a perennial debate and in the end always seems to come down to current network and server hardware technologies. In various contexts, I have seen this question flip-flop many times since my first serious programming in 1965 on an IBM 1620. (Very cool CPU architecture: BCD arithmetic by table lookup. You loaded the arithmetic tables into low memory. The result was that you could make the machine do hardware arithmetic in any base up to 10. Excellent for number theory...). It will flip again, many times in the future.
Bob
Roger Hyam wrote:
*Centralization of services* The TDWG architecture should not rely on any third party providing a particular piece of infrastructure indefinitely. This effectively rules out the architecture being based on any centralized data warehouse or indexing service beyond the hosting of standards files by TDWG itself - possibly as part of its collaborative infrastructure.
Roger
I
Tdwg-tag mailing list Tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag_lists.tdwg.org
I meant, as written in the full sentence, "rules out the architecture being limited to". Per commentary at end, I definitely DO NOT want to rule out central architectures or indexing.
Bob Morris wrote:
Instead of your "rules out the architecture being based on" wording, I would prefer to see "rules out the architecture limited to":
This effectively rules out the architecture being limited to centralized data warehouse or indexing service beyond the hosting of standards files by TDWG itself - possibly as part of its collaborative infrastructure.
What I really believe is that warehousing and indexing should certainly be supported use cases, but so should be the kinds of direct queries otherwise discussed. In fact, I suspect that what one will find is that the warehousing and indexing requirements will come down to exactly those for direct queries PLUS appropriate support for caching support (e.g. data validity contracts), provenance and maybe access control. The idea of separating those three in discussion is appealing to me because I suspect they are orthogonal to each other and to the other data storage and exchange issues. GBIF's experience will be valuable about "what got left out" in expanding the original distributed dreams (DiGIR, BioCase) into contemporary centralized realities. Central vs. distributed information processing and data provision is a perennial debate and in the end always seems to come down to current network and server hardware technologies. In various contexts, I have seen this question flip-flop many times since my first serious programming in 1965 on an IBM 1620. (Very cool CPU architecture: BCD arithmetic by table lookup. You loaded the arithmetic tables into low memory. The result was that you could make the machine do hardware arithmetic in any base up to 10. Excellent for number theory...). It will flip again, many times in the future.
Bob
Roger Hyam wrote:
*Centralization of services* The TDWG architecture should not rely on any third party providing a particular piece of infrastructure indefinitely. This effectively rules out the architecture being based on any centralized data warehouse or indexing service beyond the hosting of standards files by TDWG itself - possibly as part of its collaborative infrastructure.
Roger
I
Tdwg-tag mailing list Tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag_lists.tdwg.org
Hi Bob,
I changed to words as per your suggestion but then realized that the thing might not be 'limited to' a central index or data warehouse but it could still be 'dependent on' a central service so I added 'or reliant on'
Roger
*Centralization of services* The TDWG architecture should not rely on any third party providing a particular piece of infrastructure indefinitely. This effectively rules out rules out the architecture being limited to or reliant on any centralized data warehouse or indexing service beyond the hosting of standards files by TDWG itself - possibly as part of its collaborative infrastructure.
Bob Morris wrote:
I meant, as written in the full sentence, "rules out the architecture being limited to". Per commentary at end, I definitely DO NOT want to rule out central architectures or indexing.
Bob Morris wrote:
Instead of your "rules out the architecture being based on" wording, I would prefer to see "rules out the architecture limited to":
This effectively rules out the architecture being limited to centralized data warehouse or indexing service beyond the hosting of standards files by TDWG itself - possibly as part of its collaborative infrastructure.
What I really believe is that warehousing and indexing should certainly be supported use cases, but so should be the kinds of direct queries otherwise discussed. In fact, I suspect that what one will find is that the warehousing and indexing requirements will come down to exactly those for direct queries PLUS appropriate support for caching support (e.g. data validity contracts), provenance and maybe access control. The idea of separating those three in discussion is appealing to me because I suspect they are orthogonal to each other and to the other data storage and exchange issues. GBIF's experience will be valuable about "what got left out" in expanding the original distributed dreams (DiGIR, BioCase) into contemporary centralized realities. Central vs. distributed information processing and data provision is a perennial debate and in the end always seems to come down to current network and server hardware technologies. In various contexts, I have seen this question flip-flop many times since my first serious programming in 1965 on an IBM 1620. (Very cool CPU architecture: BCD arithmetic by table lookup. You loaded the arithmetic tables into low memory. The result was that you could make the machine do hardware arithmetic in any base up to 10. Excellent for number theory...). It will flip again, many times in the future.
Bob
Roger Hyam wrote:
*Centralization of services* The TDWG architecture should not rely on any third party providing a particular piece of infrastructure indefinitely. This effectively rules out the architecture being based on any centralized data warehouse or indexing service beyond the hosting of standards files by TDWG itself - possibly as part of its collaborative infrastructure.
Roger
I
Tdwg-tag mailing list Tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag_lists.tdwg.org
Sounds better to me.
Roger Hyam wrote:
Hi Bob,
I changed to words as per your suggestion but then realized that the thing might not be 'limited to' a central index or data warehouse but it could still be 'dependent on' a central service so I added 'or reliant on'
Roger
*Centralization of services* The TDWG architecture should not rely on any third party providing a particular piece of infrastructure indefinitely. This effectively rules out rules out the architecture being limited to or reliant on any centralized data warehouse or indexing service beyond the hosting of standards files by TDWG itself - possibly as part of its collaborative infrastructure.
Bob Morris wrote:
I meant, as written in the full sentence, "rules out the architecture being limited to". Per commentary at end, I definitely DO NOT want to rule out central architectures or indexing.
Bob Morris wrote:
Instead of your "rules out the architecture being based on" wording, I would prefer to see "rules out the architecture limited to":
This effectively rules out the architecture being limited to centralized data warehouse or indexing service beyond the hosting of standards files by TDWG itself - possibly as part of its collaborative infrastructure.
What I really believe is that warehousing and indexing should certainly be supported use cases, but so should be the kinds of direct queries otherwise discussed. In fact, I suspect that what one will find is that the warehousing and indexing requirements will come down to exactly those for direct queries PLUS appropriate support for caching support (e.g. data validity contracts), provenance and maybe access control. The idea of separating those three in discussion is appealing to me because I suspect they are orthogonal to each other and to the other data storage and exchange issues. GBIF's experience will be valuable about "what got left out" in expanding the original distributed dreams (DiGIR, BioCase) into contemporary centralized realities. Central vs. distributed information processing and data provision is a perennial debate and in the end always seems to come down to current network and server hardware technologies. In various contexts, I have seen this question flip-flop many times since my first serious programming in 1965 on an IBM 1620. (Very cool CPU architecture: BCD arithmetic by table lookup. You loaded the arithmetic tables into low memory. The result was that you could make the machine do hardware arithmetic in any base up to 10. Excellent for number theory...). It will flip again, many times in the future.
Bob
Roger Hyam wrote:
*Centralization of services* The TDWG architecture should not rely on any third party providing a particular piece of infrastructure indefinitely. This effectively rules out the architecture being based on any centralized data warehouse or indexing service beyond the hosting of standards files by TDWG itself - possibly as part of its collaborative infrastructure.
Roger
I
Tdwg-tag mailing list Tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag_lists.tdwg.org
Hi Roger
On the Wiki, I'm moved to clarify the status of the TDWG Infrastructure Project and GBIF in relation to the TAG. I feel that this is only fair to enable Donald to wade in there with GBIF as well as TDWG glasses on. This is as appropriate for Donald as it is for anyone else. It is also appreciated.
I know that I speak for the TIP Team when I say that there are no hidden agendas. We genuinely seek the best for the broadest community.
Cheers,
Lee
Lee Belbin Manager, TDWG Infrastructure Project Email: lee@tdwg.org Phone: +61(0)419 374 133
_____
From: Tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:Tdwg-tag-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Roger Hyam Sent: Tuesday, 7 March 2006 3:47 AM To: Tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org Subject: [Tdwg-tag] Position of GBIF in architecture and centralization ofservices.
I have added two agreed issues to the TAG wiki on the basis of the discussions over the past few days. I won't add this to the end of the current threads as they are way off their original topics.
I hope they will lay some ghosts to rest so we don't have to drag them up again to often - provided we all agree on them that is!
The new points I believe we can agree on are:
The standards architecture developed and promoted by TDWG must be entirely separate from the GBIF data portal. Although GBIF is involved in administering the TDWG Infrastructure Project which, in turn, has recommended the establishment of the TAG this in no way implies that any technical architecture proposed by the TAG will or should give the needs of the GBIF data portal any more weight than any other individual or group within the TDWG. Any proposals made by the TAG will be accompanied by technical justifications. It should therefore be clear if proposals are being made merely to facilitate the short term work of the GBIF data portal and not for the long term benefit of all.
Centralization of services The TDWG architecture should not rely on any third party providing a particular piece of infrastructure indefinitely. This effectively rules out the architecture being based on any centralized data warehouse or indexing service beyond the hosting of standards files by TDWG itself - possibly as part of its collaborative infrastructure.
You can read all agreed issues here:
http://www.tdwg.hyam.net/twiki/bin/view/TAG/TagDiscussionRoadMap
I believe this closes issues of whether we are building a global system or just specifying standards that could be used to collaboratively build a global system should people feel the need to do it.
Speak now for forever hold your peace!
All the best,
Roger
I
participants (3)
-
Bob Morris -
Lee Belbin -
Roger Hyam