Index Fungorum LSID server [ Scanned for viruses ]

Paul Kirk p.kirk at CABI.ORG
Sun Apr 23 12:08:40 CEST 2006

Not in the slightest ... ;-)
Not yet. Kevin is porting everything into .NET - at the moment the resolver runs on an old Dell box with the database on a slightly less old Dell box (the same server as the human interface and the web service). We plan to move everything on to one server when we have the .NET version written and tested (sometime in the summer is my optimistic plan) - accompanied by a server swop (testing in isolation from live server) to give a bit more horsepower.


From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project on behalf of Roderic Page
Sent: Sun 23/04/2006 11:52
Subject: Re: Index Fungorum LSID server [ Scanned for viruses ]

Hope it didn't come across as too negative. I know these things are not
easy to get set up, and I'm still finding my own way through the RDF

Is your server .NET based?



On 22 Apr 2006, at 10:57, Kevin Richards wrote:

> Thanks for those comments Rod.
> As you have seen this is an initial attempt.
>>> The syntax
>>>      <TaxonNames:hasBasionym>
>>>        <rdf:Description
>>> rdf:about="" />
>>>      </TaxonNames:hasBasionym>
>>> strikes me as odd.
> This is due to an accidental omission of the RDF entity type of the
> basionym object.  Will fix this.
>>> I also suggest that has a
>>> complementary tag such as
>>>      <TaxonNames:isBasionymOf rdf:resource =
>>> " 213649" />
> Godd idea.  The fields are based on the initial implementation of
> TCS-RDF that Roger completed, and as he said, it is not a complete
> schema at this stage.  BTW the reverse RDF pointers can be viewed using
> launchpad by going into the launchpad settings and turning on 'Show
> back
> links'.
>>> The attribute
>>> TaxonNames:nomenclaturalCode="
>>> NomenclaturalCode/#botanical" of the tag <TaxonNames:TaxonName> is
>>> problematic. Firstly, I don't know why this is an attribute rather
> than
>>> just another tag,
> Due to my lack of understanding of RDF and when to use attributes as
> opposed to tags - I was blindly following an example.
>>> and the URI
>>> returns a 404. If this is just a made up URI then this is bad --
>>> URI in an RDF document must be real -- unlike XML schema where any
> old
>>> rubbish can be used.
> Also due to the prototyping stage of this 'project'.  Will be fixed by
> online TDWG ontologies at some stage I assume?
>>>     <TaxonNames:publishedIn><i>Syll. fung.</i> (Abellini)
>>> <b>1</b>: 148 (1882) (1882)</TaxonNames:publishedIn>
>>> has formatting information (the <i></i> and <b></b> tags). I think
> this
>>> is in principle a bad thing(TM)
> We debated this a little and decided to leave the field text the same
> as
> has been returned by other services of IndexFungorum.  But you have a
> good point and it is something we will need to discuss further in
> future.
> Kevin
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++
> 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
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++
Professor Roderic D. M. Page
Editor, Systematic Biology
Graham Kerr Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QP
United Kingdom

Phone:    +44 141 330 4778
Fax:      +44 141 330 2792
email: at

Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic
Biologists Website:
Search for taxon names:
Find out what we know about a species:
Rod's rants on phyloinformatics:

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list