[tdwg-guid] BioGUID

Donald Hobern dhobern at gbif.org
Wed Mar 21 16:38:47 CET 2007


I'd just like to support your suggestion that DOIs are the obvious  
choice wherever we need a GUID for interacting with publishers or  
ensuring citability, and certainly for any elements which may require  
special handling (e.g. alternate views for subscribers and the  
general public).

In case there is any confusion over the outcomes of the TDWG  
workshops on GUIDs, the conclusion there was that different  
identifier models were likely to be appropriate in different  
situations.  The general recommendation to adopt LSIDs was because  
they were lightweight at the time of issuing (no need to register  
them centrally) and could be resolved without a dependency on a  
single central service.  At the same time, the choice of a URN-based  
identifier scheme rather than HTTP URIs still seems (at least to me)  
to be a benefit because we want to be able to assign identifiers  
which (at least in principle) are not tied to the current (albeit  
seemingly omnipresent) HTTP technologies - many of the objects we  
wish to identify have already had a valuable existence far longer  
than the Internet Age.  In cases needing a more centralised and  
potentially robust solution, and where linkage to the publishing  
world is desired, DOIs are often likely to be the preferred choice.


On Mar 21, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Roderic Page wrote:


Donald Hobern (dhobern at gbif.org)
Deputy Director for Informatics
Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat
Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Tel: +45-35321483   Mobile: +45-28751483   Fax: +45-35321480

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20070321/acb7b713/attachment.html 

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list