LSID & resolution discovery service (was: identifiers for geologic samples)
richardsk at LANDCARERESEARCH.CO.NZ
Wed Feb 1 11:23:26 CET 2006
Not a problem if we, as a group, agree upon using the standard LSID authorities and reolution services. The only problem will then be external parties that want to integrate with TDWG data sets and have already used a proprietary lsid authority format. To fix this the client requesting LSID information would need to install and use an LSID resolver that can handle that proprietary authority format.
>>> ricardo at TDWG.ORG 02/01/06 9:08 AM >>>
"The LSID Resolution Discovery service has only one method that takes
any LSID and returns a list of LSID Resolution
services that are responsible for the given LSID. The method may raise
an exception if it fails to find an appropriate LSID
Resolution service for the given LSID. This may occur particularly when
the authority identification field of the LSID is
less standardized (which may occur for local services known only to a
limited number of clients)."
Does that property of LSID brings any implications for our group?
> Also, LSIDs are required by the spec to be semantically opaque.
> Though, this has some exceptions, and semantic opacity is narrowly
> defined, I would say that except for resolution service discovery
> services---and such services that use DNS are narrowly constrained by
> the spec---, those applications that ascribe meaning to parts of an
> LSID are probably guilty of violating the spec and perhaps don't
> deserve that much sympathy.
> cf Section 8 and Section 13.3 of http://www.omg.org/docs/dtc/04-05-01.pdf
> I hope that those who argue against LSIDs on either of the above two
> grounds will place in the wiki (or point me to where it already is)
> how I am misreading the spec.If I am reading it correctly, I don't
> understand how the arguments Rod puts forth here would lead to
> rejection of LSID whatever other disadvantages it may have compared to
> This is a familiar sounding point and maybe somebody answered me the
> last time I whined about it, long ago in a mailing list far, far away.
> My apologies if so.
> Bob Morris
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.
More information about the tdwg-tag