[tdwg-guid] LSID metadata persistence (or lack thereof)[Scanned]
Chuck.Miller at mobot.org
Fri Jul 13 20:59:10 CEST 2007
That is the exact issue we have yet to definitively and unambiguously
resolve. The purist definition of metadata has been an impediment to
getting what we need. It is an imperfect world and that world is real.
We need to be able to apply an LSID to that byte-stream "Homo sapiens",
if that is what the actual data is, and then that byte-stream never
change. We have millions of that particular kind of data waiting to have
LSIDs given to them and a whole lot of other kinds, too.
From: Paul Kirk [mailto:p.kirk at cabi.org]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 1:45 PM
To: Chuck Miller; Dave Vieglais
Cc: tdwg-guid at lists.tdwg.org
Subject: RE: [tdwg-guid] LSID metadata persistence (or lack
In an imperfect world there is no such thing as an
'identical-byte-stream' because the technology we use is imperfect ...
the disk controllers which manage our bytes and the disk we use to store
our bytes have recognized error rates. Perhaps I'm being a pedant in the
above analysis but I was almost persuaded that except for digital
objects (images, sounds) which can be data all other 'things' (names,
specimen accession numbers) had to be metadata. This to me makes no
sense in the real but imperfect world we live in. An LSID assigned to a
name (e.g. Homo sapiens) is assigned to the name as data, not metadata.
What is 'identical' here it that if the spelling has to change for any
reason the new spelling gets a new LSID and the now incorrect spelling
gets deprecated (but is still resolvable) with a pointer to the correct
spelling/LSID in the metadata.
From: tdwg-guid-bounces at lists.tdwg.org on behalf of Chuck Miller
Sent: Fri 13/07/2007 19:03
To: Dave Vieglais
Cc: tdwg-guid at lists.tdwg.org
Subject: RE: [tdwg-guid] LSID metadata persistence (or lack
What you say is true. But, I think we already have too many variations,
subtleties, and reinterpretations which are endlessly debated.
The LSID standard would be simple, clear and consistent if we used the
identical-byte-stream definition. The LSID would uniquely tag a
persistent byte stream. A persistent byte stream is always the same
thing without any further explanation or clarification.
The provider of an LSID byte-stream would need to commit to keeping that
byte-stream persistent and not represent it in multiple ways, even
though technically they could. If they can't commit to that, then it
can't be an LSID byte-stream.
And in the name of simplicity and clarity, if they had to provide
different byte-stream representations then they would have to assign a
different LSID to each and use "SameAs" metadata.
From: Dave Vieglais [mailto:vieglais at ku.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 12:42 PM
To: Chuck Miller
Cc: Ricardo Pereira; tdwg-guid at lists.tdwg.org
Subject: Re: [tdwg-guid] LSID metadata persistence (or lack thereof)
Hi Ricardo, Chuck,
Asserting that the byte stream returned as data associated with an
LSID should never change is perhaps a bit confusing from a
programmatic view. There are for example many ways to represent data
in xml that are identical from an information content point of view,
but the byte streams could be very different.
Perhaps it might be better to state something like "the canonical
representation of the data associated with an LSID must not change",
or something to that effect?
On Jul 14, 2007, at 05:29, Chuck Miller wrote:
> Looking at this definition: "Persistence of LSID Data: The data
> associated with an LSID (i.e, the byte stream returned by the LSID
> getData call) must never change"
> Perhaps this is a more straightforward way to conceive LSIDs. The
> LSID goes with a byte stream. It's that byte stream that must stay
> the same. So, if there is a byte stream associated with a
> collection that needs to stay the same, then whatever that byte
> stream happens to be is the data that gets an LSID assigned to it.
> That sure seems a clearer definition of what is data and what is
> metadata, rather than the issue of primary object and all that.
> So we can create a new definition in the context of LSIDs: Data is
> a byte stream that is persistent, never changes and can have an
> LSID. Metadata is a byte stream is non-persistent, might change
> and is only associated with an LSID.
> The institution who assigns an LSID can make their own decision
> about whether the byte stream being provided is persistent or non-
> persistent. By assigning an LSID to any byte stream, whatever it
> is, the institution is declaring it to be data and persistent.
> So, in the example given of an observation record with a
> determination that needs to remain fixed and unchanged, by
> assigning an LSID to that observation+determination it would be
> "declared to be data" and unchangeable. A different determination
> would then be different data with a different LSID. That would
> provide a solution for those who want to employ it. Others could
> choose not to use it.
> From: tdwg-guid-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-guid-
> bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Ricardo Pereira
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:47 AM
> To: tdwg-guid at lists.tdwg.org
> Subject: [tdwg-guid] LSID metadata persistence (or lack thereof)
> Hi there folks,
> As Chuck mentioned a few weeks ago, we do have a few
> outstanding issues to address regarding LSIDs. I would like to
> discuss those one by one, in an orderly manner, and reach consensus
> as much as we can. Then we can sum them up in a TDWG standard,
> possibly by or shortly after the Bratislava conference.
> The first issue I would like to discuss is LSID metadata
> persistence. First, let me remind you of a corollary established by
> the LSID specification:
> Corollary 1: LSIDs are not guaranteed to be resolvable
> In other words, there is no guarantee that one will always be
> able to retrieve the data associated with an LSID as the authority
> may choose (or be forced) not to resolve an LSID anymore.
> Second, let me distinguish this kind of persistence I'm talking
> about from other two related concepts (which we'll not discuss in
> this thread):
> 1) Persistence of Assignment: Once assigned to an object,
> an LSID is indefinitely associated with it. The same LSID cannot be
> assigned to another object. Ever! The LSID may not be resolvable
> anymore, but it cannot be assigned to another object. This is
> established by the LSID specification.
> 2) Persistence of LSID Data: The data associated with an
> LSID (i.e, the byte stream returned by the LSID getData call) must
> never change. Although the LSID may not be resolvable anymore
> (according to corollary 1), the data associated with an LSID must
> never ever change. That's defined by the LSID spec, too.
> What I want to discuss here is the persistence of LSID metadata
> (what is returned by the getMetadata call) or the lack thereof.
> A use case associated with metadata persistence is when someone
> collects observation records (and implicitly, their determinations)
> and runs an experiment (a model or simulation) with it. This person
> may want to record the identifiers of the points used so that
> someone using the results of that experiment may refer back to the
> primary data, to validate or repeat it the experiment.
> The bad news is that LSID identification scheme (or any other
> GUID that I know of) was not designed to guarantee metadata
> persistence, and thus it cannot implement the use case above by
> itself. To implement that use case, the specification would have to
> guarantee that the metadata (which we are using here as data) is
> immutable. But it doesn't.
> Most of us wish that metadata was persistent, but it isn't.
> Many things can change in the metadata: a new determination, a
> mispeling that is corrected, many things. We just cannot guarantee
> that the metadata will look like it was sometime ago.
> We then reach the following conclusion.
> Corollary 2: LSIDs metadata is not immutable nor
> The consequence of this corollary is that, if you need to refer
> back to a piece of information (metadata) associated with an LSID,
> exactly as it was when you got it, you must make a copy of it, or
> arrange that someone else make that copy for you.
> In other words, a client cannot assume that the metadata
> associated with an LSID today will be the same tomorrow. If the
> client does assume that, it may be relying on a false assumption
> and its output may be flawed.
> If we are not happy with that conclusion, we may develop an
> additional component in our architecture, an archive of some sort,
> to handle (meta)data persistence. That is exactly what the STD-DOI
> project (http://www.std-doi.de/) and SEEK (http://
> seek.ecoinformatics.org) have done to some extent.
> While we cannot guarantee that LSID metadata is persistent nor
> immutable, we can definitely document how the metadata have changed
> through metadata versioning. That's the topic of the next thread.
> We will move on to discuss metadata versioning as soon as we are
> done with metadata persistence.
> tdwg-guid mailing list
> tdwg-guid at lists.tdwg.org
tdwg-guid mailing list
tdwg-guid at lists.tdwg.org
P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with
it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any
distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in
it is prohibited.
Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the
transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail
or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised
to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by
e-mail at cabi at cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then
delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government
under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tdwg-tag