Some quick, ill thought out thoughts: The whole "semantically opaque" argument is probably overblown, in that it overlooks one advantage of semantic content -- it helps debugging. If an identifier breaks, it can help to have an identifier that is interpretable. Furthermore, pretty much any GUID in use on the web has loads of implicit semantic content, even DOIs. So unless we want GUIDs like A4DA1824-E695-11DA-9693-000D93425524, I suggest we let this red herring drop. The semantically opaque argument seems to me to be a statement that we can't rely on any interpretation we may put on the identifier string. That's fine, but in practice if there are semantics they can be useful, so long as we're grown ups and realise it might break. There's an interesting discussion related to this at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swls-ws/2004Sep/att-0013/ MayoBMIPosition.html. I'm puzzled that Handles weren't mentioned, simply because they are (a) free, and (b) already in use in digital library projects (e.g., http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/). Indeed, much as I love LSIDs, and at the risk of opening a can of worms, if I were setting up a digital literature repository, LSIDs would be last on my list of GUIDs. I'd look seriously at DOIs (and talk to the DOI people about what it would actually cost, and figure out how come Germany can make this free for scientists -- http://www.std-doi.de/front_content.php), then look at handles (which some BHL members are already using), then LSIDs. My argument for using DOIs would be the added value from CrossRef -- you'd get immediate integration into electronic publishing (i.e., linkable references), and isn't that part of the goal...? One complication about DOIs is whether there should be only one DOI for a publication, issued by the copyright holder/publisher. I don't mean one can't have DOIs for parts, just that are there issues if, say, Springer has a DOI for a publication and so does BHL (or anybody else). Lastly, IMHO any GUID that is not resolvable now is a waste of time, so I see no value in an identifier like urn:bhl:... Regards Rod On 18 May 2006, at 15:56, Donald Hobern wrote:

After my post yesterday, Neil Thomson forwarded me this paper he has prepared for the Biodiversity Heritage Library on their need for GUIDs.  His document ends by explaining how BHL identifiers could end up looking "a bit like an LSID".  Obviously I would recommend that they should actually just be LSIDs, but Neil is interested in any feedback on this paper and it clearly relates very much to all that we discussed under the general heading of "Publication Bank".

Thanks,

Donald

--

--------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Hobern (dhobern@gbif.org) Programme Officer for Data Access and Database Interoperability Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Tel: +45-35321483 Mobile: +45-28751483 Fax: +45-35321480 ---------------------------------------------------------------

<GUIDs-BHL-2-1.doc>_______________________________________________ TDWG-GUID mailing list TDWG-GUID@mailman.nhm.ku.edu http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- Professor Roderic D. M. Page Editor, Systematic Biology DEEB, IBLS Graham Kerr Building University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QP United Kingdom Phone: +44 141 330 4778 Fax: +44 141 330 2792 email: r.page@bio.gla.ac.uk web: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html reprints: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/pubs.html Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org Search for taxon names: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/ Find out what we know about a species: http://ispecies.org Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: http://iphylo.blogspot.com