[tdwg-guid] TDWG LSID Resolver broken?

Richard Pyle deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
Fri Nov 30 13:52:53 CET 2007

> My off-the-cuff comment was inspired by seeing a tag <doi>
> in the ontology. If you have DOIs, why not Handles, or any 
> other GUID? Personally I would just use <dc:identifier>

If I'm not mistaken, this is more or less exactly the same conclusion that
we canme to at the St. Louis TDWG-Lit meeting recently. I.e., don't single
out DOIs, but deal with identifiers in a more generic way.

> What if the proxy goes away?

In the case of LSIDs, this was my rationale for using the same domain name
for the HTTP proxy as for the LSID authority -- the idea being that they
will both live or die in synchrony.

> Is there an expectation that the proxied version will serve RDF?

I would like to keep the options open on that -- or at least allow for an
HTTP proxy that can return something other than RDF (e.g., HTML) -- at least
as an option.

> 2. Have a global proxy server for all classes of identifiers 
> that we might have, and have this return RDF (and do 303 redirects, 
> or whatever the Semantic Web community settle on). This was the 
> motivation behind my experiments with http://bioguid.info .

I think (and have always thought) that this is an excellent and badly-needed
service.  I just want the option of setting up my own HTTP proxy that can
return something other than RDF (i.e., I'd rather avoid the presumption that
all HTTP proxies for GUIDs are assumed to return RDF).


More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list