[tdwg-tag] Blog: UUIDs may be Dangerous
vieglais at ku.edu
Tue Nov 25 00:35:57 CET 2008
My comments for what they're worth:
1. Since technology can be quite ephemeral, identifiers should not be
dependent on technology.
2. To avoid collisions, it is necessary to have coordination of ID
ranges (i.e. defining namespaces for different id generators) - that's
the purpose of DNS in LSIDs and pure URL identifiers - but DNS is a
transient technology so relying on DNS for namespace definition seems
to be a mistake.
3. There should be well known services for resolving these identifiers
- the LSID infrastructure already in place may be helpful in this, as
will the Handle/DOI infrastructure.
4. There should be well defined rules for combining and splitting
resolver service URLs with identifiers - so that an identifier can be
embedded in a URL to be resolved without stating that the URL is the
identifier. Ideally these rules should work for not just HTTP urls
but also other protocols such as FTP, LDAP, and even ssh.
Following these guidelines would enable full use of the evolving
semantic web infrastructure, legacy plain old HTTP services, and for
those that really want them, LSIDs.
On Nov 24, 2008, at 18:11 , Roderic Page wrote:
> And the fourth question is, at what point in a setting up a central
> service that registers and redirects do we realise that we're
> reinventing the wheel and take a hard look at Handles/DOIs?
> On 21 Nov 2008, at 14:39, Markus Döring (GBIF) wrote:
>> It's funny that nearly all of us consider stable URLs as the best
>> option by now, but we still decided to stay with LSIDs during TDWG.
>> The main argument for LSIDs during the TAG meeting was indeed a
>> one: they look more stable, especially in printed publications.
>> But I have to support Gregor in that initial trust in stable URLs is
>> achieved by making the URL look stable. Finally it boils down to a
>> management problem, no matter if we use LSIDs, PURLs or whatever
>> To get forward with this everlasting discussion:
>> Is there anyone left who would feel bad about moving to stable URLs?
>> And as a second question, should we have a central domain that
>> registers services and redirects to the resolving service, so that
>> people can move their service. Or do we trust the community to keep
>> their URLs stable themselves?
>> And if we prefer a central service, should we just use DNS and assign
>> subdomains for the individual services, e.g. http://rbgk13.tdwg.id/543-544-cfjf3f667
>> or assign paths within the URL to services, e.g. http://guid.tdwg.org/rbgk13/543-544-cfjf3f667
>> On Nov 20, 2008, at 11:09 PM, Gregor Hagedorn wrote:
>>> Kevin writes
>>>> - ie they cannot be resolved using default HTTP resolution. The
>>>> idea of
>>>> using the http proxy version of the LSIDs is a good way to get
>>>> around this,
>>>> but this does have some drawbacks:
>>>> - 1st you really need everyone to agree to use it everywhere,
>>>> which is a
>>>> bit difficult considering it is not at all part of the LSID
>>>> standard, and we
>>>> struggle to get "everyone" to do anything
>>>> - 2nd, it seems very much like a hack - you might as well just use
>>>> http urls - ie the main advantage of LSIDs in this case is the
>>>> a degree of thought before making URIs publically available". But
>>>> we don't
>>>> really need to pick up the whole LSID overhead just to achieve
>>> 3rd: the system is complicated and it is difficult to guarantee that
>>> the sequence of reciprocal references is correct and in the right
>>> order and place. I believe you would need special validator tools to
>>> find errors in the system.
>>> And, most relevantly, I believe it will exclude many from
>>> participation, because the complexity is a bit scary.
>>>> So it seems to me like good old Plain Old URLs are just great! :
>>>> Or at least the suggestion of REST styled, permanent HTTP URLs as
>>>> GUIDs ???
>>> I fully agree. I believe LSIDs never were meant to be a technical
>>> solution, but rather a technical wedge to hammer in to achieve
>>> change. All the LSIDs really promise are different management
>>> As argued in http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/GUID/CommunityPracticesForHttp-basedGUIDs
>>> I think it is sensible to agree on a community agreed mechanism to
>>> keep some URLs more stable than others. That could be URLs
>>> UUIDs, but I would argue for a social convention to agree on a
>>> recognizable string marking URLs that should be kept stable as long
>>> possible and at least not re-assigned. There would be little harm to
>>> have a couple of such naming conventions, including e.g. non-english
>>> localizations, but one could be:
>>> Dr. Gregor Hagedorn
>>> Heinrich-Seidel-Str. 2
>>> 12167 Berlin
>>> skype: g.hagedorn
>>> This message is sent on a personal basis and does not constitute an
>>> activity of the German Federal Government or its research
>>> tdwg-tag mailing list
>>> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
>> tdwg-tag mailing list
>> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> Roderic Page
> Professor of Taxonomy
> DEEB, FBLS
> Graham Kerr Building
> University of Glasgow
> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
> Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 141 330 4778
> Fax: +44 141 330 2792
> AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
> Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
> tdwg-tag mailing list
> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tdwg-tag