Globally Unique Identifier
richardsk at LANDCARERESEARCH.CO.NZ
Sun Sep 26 19:47:10 CEST 2004
I believe a centralised system that maintins and assigns the LSIDs would be
too large a job for one organisation and would create a bottle-neck in the
system (where every call/request or assignment of IDs will need to be
passed through one web server located a GBIF).
The reality of the data that will be transferred using the SDD format, is
that it is quite decentralised and is represented in quite different ways
at each data source. I think therefore it should be up the orgainisation
containing the data to provide a LSID and resolve these LSIDs. For example
we are considering an LSID and a MAC GUID for the unique ID of our
taxonomic name data here at Landcare Research. Which would be something
34CDA0F465EC. With a centralised system this would not be allowed - ie the
LSID would probably be limited to integers, which would then need to be
reslove at the individual organisation to find the matching data.
Having a non-centralised system would put more work on each organisation
involved, and create problems when data is moved, or organisations are
closed, but this just means that procedures need to be put in place to
handle such situations. It is possible that there may be intermediate
services that provide the LSID resolution for a bunch of databases/data
sources and serve up this data to those who request it.
I also think there is a bit of a tie between the authority name of the LSID
and the URL that is used for obtaining the data. This doesnt need to be
so. The would be the job of the central Resolver would be to match the
authority name to the url for obtaining the data. So the authority name in
the LSID could just be any name.
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:29:26 -1000, Richard Pyle
<deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG> wrote:
>I want to start by wholeheartedly endorsing Wouter's plea for
>non-information-bearing (meaningless) GUIDs. This feature is CRITICAL to
>the long-term success of any GUID system. It is absolutely imperative that
>there NEVER be any motivation to change the content of a GUID (i.e., it
>should be permanent). If the GUID itself contains any information
>whatsoever, there may be motivation to change that information at a later
>For this reason, I had initially preferred the DOI approach, but over time,
>I am gradually warming up to the LSID approach. While components of an
>do, indeed, represent information, they represent the one piece of
>information that I think may legitimately belong embedded within a GUID:
>context. That is, the context, or domain, of the GUID itself. The context
>in this case would be the "issuer" of the GUID -- not necessarily the
>current "owner" of the GUID (see more discussion on this below). Though
>organization that issued a GUID may eventually disappear, the fact that the
>organization was the one to issue the GUID in the first place will never
>change, and thus represents a permanent and unchanging component of the
>GUID. Without the context portion, the GUID itself is really nothing more
>than a random string of characters. In summary, I'm warming up to the LSID
>approach because it represents embedded context, without the risk of
>temptation to change the content of a GUID after it has been issued.
>Regarding Donald's PPT file, I have a couple of comments and questions:
>(Assumes Title slide is "Slide 1")
>You note there is "No reliable mechanism" to relate the same record from
>different providers to each other. But in the context of DarwinCore, the
>combination of [InstitutionCode]+[CollectionCode]+[CatalogNumber] should
>represent a virtual GUID (provided that the Global Provider Registry
>no duplication of [InstitutionCode]). I do realize that words like "should"
>and "reliable" are critical here. Perhaps the DarwinCore implementation
>should enforce the requirement of uniqueness of
>[CollectionCode]+[CatalogNumber] within a single [InstitutionCode], and
>further ensure globally unique [InstitutionCode] values via the Global
>Wouldn't most of the problems indicated in the first four bulleted points
>largely solved by the Global Provider Registry? Using the [InstitutionCode]
>would allow lookup in the registry for a (current/active) metadata URL, and
>the metadata URL would provide information on where to access a particular
>[CollectionCode]+[CatalogNumber] piece of data.
>The issue of specimens changing numbers and/or collections is problematic,
>The issue of versioning is a bit dicey, in my mind (e.g., at what
>of information change)? Some things, like changing taxonomic
>(i.e., "real" changes) need to be handled in a robust way. Other things,
>like the correction of typos and different styles of representing the exact
>same information (e.g., R.L. Pile==>R.L. Pyle; or R.L. Pyle==>Pyle, R.L.)
>probably don't need to be versioned. Other sorts of changes (e.g., the
>elaboration of previously existing information, such as the addition of
>retroactively-generated georeference coordinates) fall somewhere in-
>We should all get behind SEEK in addressing these issues (Taxon concept
>mapping). Ultimately, we minimally need a GUID pool for References
>(inclusive of unpublished works), and a GUID pool for what I call
>"Protonyms" (original creations of IC_N Code-compliant names). The union
>these two GUIDs (what I would call "Assertions") would itself represent a
>GUID to a "potential concept" (Berendsohn). (Note: my preference would be
>define Protonyms as a subtype of Assertions, and therefore Protonym GUIDs
>would be a subset drawn from the same pool as Assertion GUIDs -- but this
>a technical discussion for another time).
>Good stuff here, but I'll respond with some of my personal opinions:
>- RevisionID: see points of concern already expressed above
>- Specimen Record LSIDs: I gather from subsequent slides that you recognize
>two alternative approaches: having the "owner" of a specimen assign the
>within the context of their own <domainName>, or adopting GBIF as the
>international standard issuer for ALL specimen GUID. In other words, GBIF
>would represent the centralized issuer of GUIDs for all biological
>specimens, and the biological specimen community would/should rally around
>GBIF for thus purpose, and adopt GBIF specimen GUIDs as their own. I
>personally have no problem with this (I do not live in fear of "Big
>centralization when it serves the benefit of all, as I believe it would in
>this case) -- but I know there are many who might have a problem with it,
>and therefore it might not garner widespread adoption without large volumes
>If, on the other hand, each organization issues its own GUIDs for its own
>set of specimens, then the question is when, if ever, GBIF would assign a
>specimen GUID? Perhaps as a surrogate for institutions that lack the
>technological ability to assign their own LSIDs? But I wonder, how many
>institutions that could server electronic data of their holdings to the
>internet would lack the ability to assign their own LSIDs?
>As you've outlined in subsequent slides, I see two alternative paths: A)
>Get the biological world to rally around GBIF as the centralized provider
>GUIDs for specimens for all collections; or B) Have each
>collection/institution issue its own set of LSIDs for its own specimens,
>have GBIF adopt those LSIDs for its own internal purposes. I could get
>behind either approach, but I see danger in the adoption of a mixture of
>these two approaches. I'll defer elaboration, but a lot of it has to do
>potential confusion about whether the GUID applies fundamentally to the
>physical specimen, or the electronic conglomeration of data associated with
>the specimen. Also, I think we should avoid the risk of assigning two
>separate GUIDs for the same "single data element" (sensu your Slide 5).
>- Name record LSIDs: I understand the example of an IPNI LSID for a plant
>name, and presumably there would be analogous "Catalog of Fishes" LSIDs for
>each fish name, etc. But I don't think that would be a wise approach.
>Unlike specimen records, where there are fairly unambiguous "owner"
>institutions (or at least "original owner" institutions that issued a
>taxonomic aggregators (IPNI, ITIS, Species2000, GBIF, uBio, etc.) are most
>certainly not owners of the taxonomic names that they include in their
>databases. We would want to avoid the risk of duplicate GUIDs for the same
>name, and thus the need for mapping, e.g., an IPNI GUID for a name to its
>ITIS equivalent. Again, I can't help but think that the world will be a
>better place if we can avoid assigning multiple GUIDs to the same "single
>One approach would be to rally around GBIF, and rely on them to issue GUIDs
>for all taxon names. However, I also recognize that we do not exist in a
>political/personality vacuum with regards to "ownership" of taxonomic
>or the electronic representations thereof. Therefore, the closest thing
>that exists to an "owner" of a taxonomic name is the Commission of
>Nomenclature (and it's respective Code of Nomenclature) under which the
>was established. Thus, when it comes to assigning GUIDs for names (not
>concepts), I would propose the following:
>urn:lsid:ICZN.org:TaxonName:XXXXXX (all zoological names)
>urn:lsid:ICBN.org:TaxonName:XXXXXX (all botanical names)
>urn:lsid:ICNB[or LBSN??].org:TaxonName:XXXXXX (all bacteriological names)
>urn:lsid:ICTV[or ICVCN??].org:TaxonName:XXXXXX (all virus names)
>In an ideal world, we'd get to the point where there would be a need for
>only one registrar of nomenclature, e.g.:
>But I don't think we're quite there yet.
>In any case, the idea would be for the taxon name aggregators to adopt the
>unambiguously unique GUID for each taxon name.
>Taxonomic concepts are a whole 'nother ball of wax....
>I actually prefer this approach (GBIF as the central issuer of specimen
>GUIDs), for a variety of reasons. One of the main reasons is that it would
>assure uniqueness of an integer within a given <namespace> (e.g.,
>Specimens), which would make things a bit easier for those of us who like
>use integers as primary keys in databases. In other words, it avoids the
>possibility of urn:lsid:bishopmuseum.org:Specimen:1234567 colliding with
>urn:lsid:usnm.gov:Specimen:1234567, when reducing the GUID to just its
>integer component for local application purposes (where context can be
>enforced by other means). However, I should point something out regarding
>the "Advantage" part of this slide, which is that the "problem" of
>transferring record locations doesn't exist, provided that the <domainName>
>component of the LSID is taken as the issuer of the GUID, not as the
>owner of the specimen. In other words, if Bishop Museum assigned GUID
>urn:lsid:bishopmuseum.org:Specimen:1234567 to a specimen, and then gave
>specimen to Smithsonian, then Smithsonian would retain the complete GUID
>intact as: urn:lsid:bishopmuseum.org:Specimen:1234567.
>The danger comes when you try to use the <domainName> component as metadata
>to represent the current location of the specimen and/or its electronically
>represented data. This is where Wouter's original point
>GUIDs comes into play. If the whole point of using LSIDs is to embed the
>"current location" information within the ID itself so that applications
>retrieve additional data associated with the GUID directly, then I have
>concerns (mostly address already).
>Why there is a reference to urn:lsid:gbif.net:TaxonConcept:106734 at the
>of this slide???
>Again, I'm not sure I understand on this slide why there is a reference to
>Also, in this model, what function does the LSID serve that is not met by
>the concatenated [InstitutionCode]+[CollectionCode]+[CatalogNumber] (in the
>context of Global Provider Registry).
>Slide 10 (taxon concepts and literature):
>This message is already getting too long... :-)
>I already touched on this above under "Slide 4". I definitely agree that
>need a GUID system for References. This should include more than just
>published references. It doesn't quite exist yet among the existing
>Reference registrars (as far as I can tell) to accommodate the specific
>needs of taxonomists (e.g. referring to a subsection of a reference as
>representing an original taxonomic description), so I do see a need to
>create a Reference GUID system specific to biology. I could rant for pages
>on this, but I'll summarize simply with a plea to *DEFINE* a Concept GUID
>an intersection between an Name GUID and a Reference GUID (i.e., what I
>would call an "Assertion"). Not all Name-Reference combinations will be
>worthy of recognition as a distinct "Concept", but all are *potentially*
>representative of a concept (Berendsohn), and thus all should be drawn from
>the same pool of GUIDs as Concept GUIDs. In other words, "Concepts" should
>be thought of as a subtype of Name-Reference instances. I would go further
>to suggest (as I did above) that "Name" GUIDs should also be a subtype of
>Name-Reference instances (non-exclusive of Concept subtype instances),
>the Name-Reference instance that represents the Code-recognized original
>description of the name as the "handle" to the Name.
>By this approach, you need only two GUID object classes <objectClass>: one
>for References, and one for Name-Reference intersections (Assertions). The
>latter of these could serve as the source for both Concept GUIDs and Name
>My own answers to your questions:
>1) Are LSIDs the most appropriate technology?
> I'm increasingly coming to that conclusion.
>2) Should identifiers be assigned and resolved centrally or via a fully
>distributed model (or should providers have the option of using either
> I think the best option would be central. The next option would
>distributed. Leaving it as an option would, in my opinion, be a BIG
>3) Which objects should receive identifiers?
> Specimens, References, Name-Reference intersections (Assertions),
>perhaps Agents. [TaxonNames and Concepts can be subsets of Name-Reference
>3a) Should we develop a set of object classes for biodiversity informatics
>and assign identifiers to instances of all of these?
> I think so, yes. Of course, it depends a bit on who you mean
by "we". I'm
>thinking sensu lato.
>3b) Should identifiers be associated with real world objects (e.g.
>specimens), or with digitised records representing them (e.g. perhaps
>multiple records representing different digitisation attempts by different
>researchers for the same specimen), or both?
> I would say definitely real-world objects (treating things like
>Code-recognized original descriptions of taxon names, and citable
>as "real-world objects"). I do NOT think we should have separate GUIDs for
>digital representations thereof. Alternative digital representations are
>simply clutter that will eventually be weeded out of the system, once we
>get organized on this stuff, and harness the power of the internet to
>implement a global editing/QA system.
>4) What should be done about existing records without identifiers?
> As far as I know, ALL records are currently without identifiers
>someone established a widely accepted GUID system and I missed the
>4a) Should they be left alone?
> Ultimately, no.
>4b) Should they all be updated with identifiers?
> Ultimately, yes.
>4c) Should the provider software be modified to generate "soft" identifiers
>(ones which we cannot guarantee in all cases to be unique) based e.g. on
>combination of InstitutionCode, CollectionCode and CatalogNumber?
> As an interim solution, perhaps. See my comments under "Slide 2"
>5) Are revision identifiers a useful feature?
> I would like to think not. If the information is truly dynamic
>(e.g., re-determinations of taxonomic identity of specimens), then
>individual instances should probably receive their own set of GUIDs (as
>opposed to versions of the "parent" GUID). If the information is static
>over time, and changes represent objective corrections, then I don't see a
>real need to track that within the context of a GUID (record edit history
>may or may not need to be tracked, but this seems to me to be a separate
>issue from GUIDs).
>5b) How many providers will be able to provide and handle them?
> If versioning is incorporated, then it should be designed such
>"default" version is provided automatically when versioning is not handled.
>Sorry for the long post, but I feel that this issue is extremely important
>at this point in bioinformatics history.
>Richard L. Pyle, PhD
>Natural Sciences Database Coordinator, Bishop Museum
>1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
>Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
>email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TDWG - Structure of Descriptive Data
>> [mailto:TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On Behalf Of Donald Hobern
>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:22 AM
>> To: TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Globally Unique Identifier
>> This is precisely one of the key questions we need to address with any
>> identifier framework we adopt. I think we could easily use LSIDs in a
>> way that should overcome your concerns, and I think that the built-in
>> mechanisms for discovery and metadata access within the LSID model are
>> really exciting.
>> I have just put together a PowerPoint presentation to explain some of
>> what I think we could achieve with globally unique identifiers and
>> particularly with LSIDS. It can be downloaded from:
>> It may be clearest if you go through it as a slide show rather than in
>> edit mode.
>> Donald Hobern (dhobern at 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
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TDWG - Structure of Descriptive Data
>> [mailto:TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On Behalf Of Wouter Addink
>> Sent: 23. september 2004 17:38
>> To: TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Globally Unique Identifier
>> It seems that DOI allows for any existing IDs to be used as part of the
>> unique identifier. That seems to me as a fast to adopt short term
>> but not a good idea for the long term. At first sight I very much liked
>> LSID specification, but the longer I think about it, the less I like
>> parts. What I think is missing in the LSID specification is that the
>> identifier should be 'meaningless' apart from being an identifier to
>> time independent (and to avoid possible political problems). Any
>> with a URN I can think of has some meaning, which makes solutions like a
>> MAC-address generated GUID favorable in my opinion. And any meaning you
>> (like an authority of an object) can be specified in metadata instead of
>> using it in the identifier. What is not very clear to me in the LSID
>> specification is where the LSID generated by a LSIDAssigningService is
>> actually stored.
>> Wouter Addink
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gregor Hagedorn" <G.Hagedorn at BBA.DE>
>> To: <TDWG-SDD at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 6:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: Globally Unique Identifier
>> >I am not quite sure, but to me it seems with "GUID" you refer to the
>> > numeric, MAC-address generated GUID type. I have nothing against
>> > these. However, any URN in my view is a GUID that has most of the
>> > properties you mention:
>> >> - it is guaranteed to be unique globally, and can be created
>> >> anytime by any server or client machine - it has no meaning as to
>> >> where the data is physically located and will there not confuse any
>> >> user about this
>> >> - most id
>> >> mechanisms, especially URI/URN ids require a 'governing body' to
>> >> handle namespaces/urls to ensure every URN is unique, whereas a GUID
>> >> is always unique
>> > The governing body is restricted to the primary web address, and in
>> > most cases such an address is already available. Being a member of a
>> > governmental institution that explicitly forbids the use without
>> > prior consent, and forbids the use of its domain name once you are no
>> > longer working for them, I realize some potential for problem.
>> >> I do think a URL of some kind would be useful for things such as
>> >> global searches of multiple databases, as this will allow the search
>> >> to go directly to the data source where the name, referene, etc comes
>> >> from. But this should not be part of its ID. Maybe a name/id should
>> >> have several foms, a GUID for an ID and a URL + a GUID for a fully
>> >> specified name.
>> >> What are the current thoughts on these ideas?
>> > A GUID is only part of the problem. The other half of the problem is
>> > actually getting at the resource. URN schemes like DOI or LSID (I
>> > prefer the latter) intend to define resolution mechanisms. That make
>> > the URN not yet a URL - in my view the good comes with the good,
>> > location and reorganization independence.
>> > I believe GBIF should install such an LSID resolver, which is why in
>> > the UBIF proxy model, under Links, I propose to support a general URL
>> > (including potentially URNS), a typed LSID and a typed DOI. This
>> > could be simplified to have just a URN (LSID and DOI are URNs), but
>> > that would then require string parsing to determine and recognize the
>> > preferred resolvable GUID types. Comments on splitting/not splitting
>> > this are welcome!
>> > There may be some need to define a non-resolvable URN/numeric GUID as
>> > well. However, that would not be under the linking question. Is it
>> > correct that linking requires resolvability, or am I thinking into a
>> > wrong direction?
>> > Gregor
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>> > Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn at bba.de)
>> > Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety
>> > Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA)
>> > Koenigin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220
>> > 14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203
>> > Often wrong but never in doubt!
More information about the tdwg-content