Hi Kevin,

I am trying to understand how you imagine a name guid system will work. When you say "what gets a name guid?", what data/database do you think will get the guid - a central name repository? Are you thinking that all records in various databases around the world that are referring to the "same" name will have the same "Name Guid"? For resolvable GUIDs this will mean the name will always resolve to the central repository data.

I think that would be WONDERFUL -- and might even be feasible for zoological names once ZooBank is up and running. But that's tangential to my main point -- which is that TDWG Standards should establish a clear definition for what a "Name" is. At the very basic level, we need to be able to understand the difference between, say, a Specimen GUID vs. a Publication GUID vs. a Taxon Name GUID. Granted, the resolution service should take care of this distinction (a GUID is, after all, a *G*UID), in which case we would't really need to distinguish between these domains. We really need only one GUID system for all object domains (specimens, publications, names, concepts, etc.).

But Donald's question of 29 October and the TDWG GUID Wiki, imply that there are different issues to consider for different GUID domains (e.g., "GUIDsForCollectionsAndSpecimens" vs. "GUIDsForTaxonNamesAndTaxonConcepts").

So, *IF* we are partitioning GUID domains (rather than letting the resolution service determine the difference between a specimen and, say, a publication), and *IF* we are thinking about "GUIDsForTaxonNamesAndTaxonConcepts", then I believe it is critical to come up with clear definitions for what the scope of a "Name" is. If TDWG does not impose some standards of this sort, then cross-walking different datasets will be every bit as much a nightmare as it currently is. I would see that as a most unfortunate outcome for the broader goal of global biological data exchange.

Maybe I misunderstood your question?

Aloha, Rich