[tdwg-guid] Globally unique vs. globally locatable
morris.bob at gmail.com
Thu Jun 14 03:35:58 CEST 2007
Spiritually, this is approximately the current model with paper
publishing and for the major codes. The syntax of the GUID (the name)
is determined by a name syntax authority (the code commission) which
also determines a few rules for how resolvers should work. The
resolvers (publishers+libraries) are fully distributed. Furthermore,
annotations on the issued work (whether discouraged scribling on a
physical copy, or commentaries in published work indexed in citation
indices) is sometimes only accessible with difficulty since the
citation indices may not attempt to find every published citation.
On 6/13/07, Jerry Cooper <cooperj at landcareresearch.co.nz> wrote:
> Here's a use case that's been going around in my head for a few years now
> and it raises some issues to which satisfactory solutions haven't occured to
> me yet.
> I believe there is a different emphasis in the use of GUIDs around
> names/taxon concepts than there are around such things as collections,
> observations or items of literature. This use case is about the use of
> resolveable GUIDs in any registration system for new organism names (or
> nomenclatural novelties in general).
> There are a number of current name registration models, either extant or
> proposed, that seem have a centralised model in mind. I don't like that.
> What I would like to see is a distributed network of 'name issuing
> authorities' wth some overarching governance structure managed by the code
> bodies. In this scenario a use case might be this ...
> 1) Any organisation can set itself as an issuer of new names.
> 2) It gets agreement from an authoritative body, designated by the code
> bodies, that it is a recognised issuer.
> 3) It hosts a web site/service that allows its community to enter data on
> new names (+whatever additional servics it desires)
> 4) It issues GUIDs associated with new names.
> 5) It provides a web service to resolve those GUIDs to an agreed, and
> unchanging metadata document on the name.
> 6) It provides a mechanism (push/pull) for anybody, but especially
> aggregators, to resolve these metadata
> 7) It has a contract with the code body that ,should it cease to be an
> issuer, then it transfers responsibility for it's service to another issuer
> (or perhaps an approved global aggregator service).
> So what about LSIDs in this scenario? It appears to satisfy the technical
> requirements. However some issues come to mind and I'm sure those who know
> more about this than me have answers. I'd be interested in hearing them.
> Some isues are:
> a) in the mycological world at least there appear to be a number of
> organisations who would like to sign up to this model - but can't jump the
> technical hurdle of providing an LSID resolution service. They can provide
> metadata, GUIDs and could provide a 'resolution' service to a global
> aggregator (in this case IndexFungoruum) by email attachments if necessary.
> The LSID technical hurdle should not stall such a system.
> b) the LSID contains a namespace which effectively 'brands' the issuer. This
> is where I really don't like the fact that the GUID relies on a sub-string
> which contains a namespace. In the case of new names the original issuer is
> an important fact, but it should be part of the metadata document - not the
> c) what happens when an issuer 'goes under' and is required to transfer
> responsibility to another designated authority? LSIDs wraps the resolution
> mechanism into the GUID. So either the ownership of the namespace gets
> transferred or another GUID is issued for essentialy the same object.
> Neither option sounds attractive.
> This yet another reason why we, Landcare Research, have chosen not to rely
> on LSIDs for name object GUIDs, and so our LSIDs contain a GUID within a
> >>> Ricardo Pereira <ricardo at tdwg.org> 14/06/2007 4:52 a.m. >>>
> Hi folks,
> Here is another issue from that discussion thread that I'm
> splitting: (simply) globally unique vs. globally locatable. As Chuck said:
> 1. An identifier that is simply globally unique - that is, the id is never
> duplicated and always refers to the same thing. So, you can use it as a
> unique reference in a paper, like an ISBN/ISSN number. But more importantly,
> it also can be used in data files/serialized XML to enable computers to
> quickly compare import/export records for merge/update, which is an
> important function to many, many biodiversity data projects. But, this id
> does not itself tell you where it can be found. Its location must come from
> another source.
> 2. An identifier that is globally locatable via the Internet - that is, the
> id is never duplicated and always locates the same thing (with a further
> definition needed of what the thing is). The globally locatable identifier
> needs to be locatable by a web browser (HTTP) but more importantly also by
> web services which may want to use a different protocol.
> I would argue that, without loss of generality, any identifying
> scheme considered by this group (LSID, DOI, Handles, ARK and any HTTP
> URL based scheme) fulfill both use cases. Since we are interested in
> sharing data, the 2nd use case is far more important for us than the
> first. For that reason, I would suggest that any other scheme that
> provide globally unique but non-locatable identifiers (i.e. that fulfill
> use case #1 but not #2) would be irrelevant to this group.
> Such a scheme would still be important for cases other than sharing
> data, but that discussion would be outside of the scope of this group.
> If you are interested in discussing the best way to make your local
> identifiers globally unique (which was the issue that started this
> discussion I suppose), that's the subject of another (very relevant)
> thread. For now the only thing I'll say about that is that there are
> guidelines for making local identifiers globally unique in each
> identifying scheme. In the particular case of LSIDs you may find
> information about that in the following documents:
> * The LSID Specification -
> http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?dtc/04-05-01 )
> * LSID Best Practices (Naming conventions) -
> * LSID Namespaces discussion -
> In any case, rest assured that we will sum up all those guidelines
> into a section of the Bratislava Declaration ;)
> tdwg-guid mailing list
> tdwg-guid at lists.tdwg.org
> WARNING: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or
> privileged. They are intended for the addressee only and are not to be
> 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
> tdwg-guid mailing list
> tdwg-guid at lists.tdwg.org
More information about the tdwg-tag