[tdwg-tag] SourceForge LSID project websites broken - role for TDWG?
Eamonn O Tuama (GBIF)
eotuama at gbif.org
Tue Apr 7 11:28:56 CEST 2009
Dear All,
GBIF recognises the need for a system of persistent, unique identifiers for
biodiversity objects. Its strategic work plan (2007-2011) defines an
activity to “develop a system of globally unique identifiers and encourage
their use throughout biodiversity informatics”, and within the IDA
(Inventory Discovery Access) work area for the 2009-2011 work programme, the
stated aims include convening an LSID Task Group to “review the status of
LSID uptake and devise a strategy for wide deployment of LSIDs or other
GUIDs”.
The related functions of inventory, discovery and access are being brought
together by GBIF through its Global Biodiversity Resources Discovery System
(GBRDS) at the heart of which lies an extended UDDI registry linked to a
metadata cataloguing system. We have some immediate needs for GUIDs/LSIDs in
the implementation of the GBRDS. In addition, the ECAT work area sees a role
for GBIF in the global resolution of LSIDs that refer to taxon names and the
DIGIT work area has identified several facets of data mobilisation and use
where GUIDs are essential, e.g., as a key element in data publication, and
in attribution, citation and tracking of data use. Moreover, several GBIF
Participants have expressed a commitment in moving ahead with deployment of
LSIDs and are looking to the GBIF Secretariat to provide leadership and
essential services. To that end, we have already begun to explore internally
a role for GBIF as an LSID hosting/proxy service along the lines being
advocated by Donald (Hobern).
Now, because of the perceived urgency and confusion/uncertainty around the
future of LSIDs, and more generally, the social/institutional challenges of
providing stable and persistent GUIDs, GBIF is fast-forwarding the convening
of an LSID Task Group to explore the issues and offer recommendations on the
way forward, with particular reference to the GBIF network. A call for
participation will be issued later this month and we expect the task group
to be convened and operational within about four weeks.
Best regards,
Éamonn
_______________________________________________
Éamonn Ó Tuama, M.Sc., Ph.D. (eotuama at gbif.org),
Senior Programme Officer, Inventory, Discovery, Access (IDA),
Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat,
Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, DENMARK
Phone: +45 3532 1494; Fax: +45 3532 1480
-----Original Message-----
From: tdwg-tag-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
[mailto:tdwg-tag-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of
tdwg-tag-request at lists.tdwg.org
Sent: 07 April 2009 10:39
To: tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
Subject: tdwg-tag Digest, Vol 36, Issue 9
Send tdwg-tag mailing list submissions to
tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
tdwg-tag-request at lists.tdwg.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
tdwg-tag-owner at lists.tdwg.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of tdwg-tag digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: SourceForge LSID project websites broken - role for TDWG?
(Donald.Hobern at csiro.au)
2. Re: SourceForge LSID project websites broken - role for TDWG?
(Hilmar Lapp)
3. Re: SourceForge LSID project websites broken - role for TDWG?
(Donald.Hobern at csiro.au)
4. Re: SourceForge LSID project websites broken - role for TDWG?
(Roger Hyam)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 15:55:04 +1000
From: <Donald.Hobern at csiro.au>
Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] SourceForge LSID project websites broken -
role for TDWG?
To: <tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org>
Message-ID:
<FF7DEDBD2B38B34F94139214D371B9C4290872EC at exvic-mbx05.nexus.csiro.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks, Kathi.
I appreciate your comments and understand your concerns. This certainly is
a social problem - no technology solution will take it away. A large
proportion (though certainly not all) of the issues surrounding LSIDs will
arise with any technology which tries to address the problem.
I seem to be in the minority in believing that we can use LSIDs as one part
of a strategy to develop a community infrastructure for our data. However
we do need to start from somewhere if we want to do anything about the
persistence of our data. We need some foundations before we can properly
worry about "intelligent caching and harvesting mechanisms" (which I agree
we need).
So - here is my outline for how I think we could move forward from these
discussions:
1. An identifier scheme which aims to provide some long term persistence
probably needs to embody at least three key facts: who generated/published
the data object, what data collection this object belongs to, which data
object from the specified data collection this one is. These correspond
roughly to the Darwin Core InstitutionCode/CollectionCode/CatalogueNumber
triple and to the three main substitutable elements in an LSID. Some
systems such as DOI may obscure the whoGeneratedTheData part somewhat. Some
systems such as DOI and PURL may not always have an explicit
whatCollectionItBelongsTo part, but dealing with collections promises to be
an organisational simplification for most purposes.
2. TDWG should recommend the LSID as one suitable model for constructing
GUIDs (i.e.
"urn:lsid:<whoGeneratedTheDataObject>:<whatCollectionItBelongsTo>:<whichItem
InTheCollectionItIs>"). We could propose (or adopt) some other syntax for
this, but this gives us a neat enough way to encapsulate what we need to
know. The "urn:lsid:" part can be seen as a useful flag that this is indeed
to be considered as an identifier.
3. Where feasible, TDWG should recommend that these LSIDs should be
associated with a resolver implementing the standard LSID mechanism.
Frankly I am a lot less bothered by the resolvability of most identifiers
than I am about their consistent use, so I have no problem with the idea of
assigning LSIDs to things which do not currently resolve.
4. TDWG requires that a path must exist to retrieve the associated data
using an HTTP resolver to proxy the LSID (i.e.
http://whoGeneratedTheDataObject.org/<optional_path_elements>/<lsid>) and
that our practice is to consider this proxified version to be identical for
comparison purposes with the bare LSID. For LSIDs resolvable using the
standard LSID mechanism, this path can be http://lsid.tdwg.org/<lsid>. In
cases in which the data are only accessible via HTTP, we have broken the
LSID specification - although it seems there may be nobody other than us to
care about that fact.
5. All references to LSIDs within RDF documents should use the proxified
form.
6. TDWG and its partners should establish a PURL-like service which makes it
easy to register data sets to be associated with identifiers of this form.
In other words, a service should exist (around a domain secured for this
purpose into the future) which associates data providers with an appropriate
whoGeneratedTheDataObject element and associates their data collections with
an appropriate whatCollectionItBelongsTo element and associated URL pattern
for retrieving RDF data for the individual data objects. The exact details
could vary, but assume that TDWG sets up this service at
http://lsid.tdwg.org/ and that CSIRO wishes to register the ANIC data
collection and to have individual specimen records associated with
LSID-based identifiers. Assume further that ANIC has a script on its
servers which can return the RDF data for these specimens, say at
http://www.csiro.au/anic/specimens/<catalogueNumber>. The registration
process could result in the LSID urn:lsid:tdwg.org:csiro
.anic:12345 and the HTTP URI
http://lsid.tdwg.org/urn:lsid:tdwg.org:csiro.anic:12345 both being mapped
through to http://www.csiro.au/anic/specimens/12345. It would probably be
preferable for the LSID in this case to be
urn:lsid:csiro.tdwg.org:anic:12345 (which would make relocation of all LSID
services for a single data provider easy, but could require large numbers of
SRV records to be managed by TDWG). (I would note that it would be easy for
the infrastructure to allow the data provider to choose whether the whole
LSID or just the final ID element should be passed to the final URL.)
7. TDWG and its partners should use this same infrastructure to handle
alternative resolution paths as required in the future - if alternative
identifier schemes become the preferred option. This infrastructure could
also add significant other functions, including e.g. 1) intelligent caching
of data, 2) validation of RDF data, and 3) simultaneous registration of DOIs
associated with metadata for each data collection to make it easier for them
to be cited by journal articles.
8. Any provider may opt at any time to use alternative HTTP-resolvable
identifiers in place of LSIDs (e.g. DOIs, handles, PURLs), but must consider
the technological and social implications of keeping these identifiers alive
into the future.
As far as I can see, this approach allows us to develop a community-based
approach to managing identifiers in a way which builds on LSIDs for those
who have already minted them. It would be easy for us to reinvent this as a
PURL-based approach in the future. The costs should not be great and it
gives us a better chance of avoiding the confusion of
random-URLs-pointing-at-random-data-formats being offered as semantically
useful GUIDs.
Whatever happens, TDWG needs to finalise an applicability statement for how
LSIDs should be used by those providers who have chosen or who will choose
to use them for biodiversity data. This does not mandate that everyone MUST
use LSIDs.
Does this seem worth pursuing?
Donald
Donald Hobern, Director, Atlas of Living Australia
CSIRO Entomology, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601
Phone: (02) 62464352 Mobile: 0437990208
Email: Donald.Hobern at csiro.au
Web: http://www.ala.org.au/
-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:15:00 +0200
From: Schleidt Katharina <katharina.schleidt at umweltbundesamt.at>
Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] SourceForge LSID project websites broken -
role for TDWG?
To: Roger Hyam <rogerhyam at mac.com>, Peter DeVries
<pete.devries at gmail.com>
Cc: "tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org" <tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org>
Message-ID:
<8638F29270898544933A7663226809E5EAAA6060 at PCMAIL3.umweltbundesamt.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi all,
I admit I?m glad that this topic does seem to be back in discussion. I?ve
been worried about LSIDs from the outset, but did not have the time or
resources at the time of decision to do anything about it. Most of this
discussion reflects what we?ve been discussing here in Vienna ever since the
topic came up. Here an excerpt from a recent mail of mine:
? I have never been a proponent of LSIDs. More to the point, I have
been against their adoption from the onset. The reasons for this are:
o It?s misusing a technical solution as an answer for a social problem.
Just because LSIDs entail a list of (quite necessary) requirements such as
persistent IDs, dependability of availability of online references, it can
in no way guarantee this, it just nicely covers the problem up
o I do not see the technology being supported. IBM dropped it, and
Cambridge Semantics Inc. also seems to have gone other ways
o An example of the lack of dependability of LSID servers seems to me to
be the eternal problem with the TDWG LSID Server
o I?m worried about a group such as TDWG, which doesn?t have the backup to
push through technology development, is going towards requiring all adopters
to implement non-mainstream technology in order to maintain compatibility
We?ve come to the conclusion, as mentioned several times in this thread,
that what we really need is the commitment to persistence, and no technology
will support us in that. Why waste nonexistent funds sorting out an esoteric
technology nobodies supporting; why not just buy a domain, pass a hat and
set up a trust fund with 1000? (or $), and agree to have this domain
available over some institution (i.e. university) for the next 100 years.
After that, my non-existent great-grandchildren can sort out the rest!
@Matt:
http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/lod-datasets_2009-03-05.html is
online again! And a short absence/down-time will happen in all distributed
technologies. If anything, I believe that we should worry more about
intelligent caching and harvesting mechanisms!
:)
kathi
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 02:54:15 -0400
From: Hilmar Lapp <hlapp at duke.edu>
Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] SourceForge LSID project websites broken -
role for TDWG?
To: Donald.Hobern at csiro.au
Cc: tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
Message-ID: <0FEBAE72-265D-4499-ABBA-D2D8D7B2F839 at duke.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
On Apr 7, 2009, at 1:55 AM, Donald.Hobern at csiro.au wrote:
> Assume further that ANIC has a script on its servers which can
> return the RDF data for these specimens, say at
http://www.csiro.au/anic/specimens/
> <catalogueNumber>. The registration process could result in the
> LSID urn:lsid:tdwg.org:csiro.anic:12345
Wouldn't that say according to your proposed usage guideline that
tdwg.org is whoGeneratedTheData and csiro.anic is
whatCollectionItBelongsTo, when in reality CSIRO generated the data
and ANIC is the collection it belongs to?
I understand why you're suggesting the LSID formatted as you do, and
you might say that the name-mangling isn't too drastic. But don't have
data owners a strong sense of ownership in their data objects and in
their collections? And more importantly, don't you think that a usage
guideline that contradicts itself (or that is bound to be internally
inconsistent) will continue to raise debate and be in the way of
broader adoption?
> and the HTTP URI http://lsid.tdwg.org/urn:lsid:tdwg.org:csiro.anic:12345
> both being mapped through to http://www.csiro.au/anic/specimens/
> 12345.
Wouldn't http://purl.tdwg.org/CSIRO/ANIC/12345 be shorter, do more
justice to the names of whoGeneratedTheData and
whatCollectionItBelongsTo, be easier to implement, and have the same
possibilities to implement caching etc, in fact using standard
software such as mod_proxy for apache?
Just some thoughts.
-hilmar
--
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :
===========================================================
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:17:59 +1000
From: <Donald.Hobern at csiro.au>
Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] SourceForge LSID project websites broken -
role for TDWG?
To: <hlapp at duke.edu>
Cc: tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
Message-ID:
<FF7DEDBD2B38B34F94139214D371B9C4290872EF at exvic-mbx05.nexus.csiro.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks, Hilmar.
I agree that using tdwg.org as the authority for the LSID is less than ideal
- hence my recommendation later that we should consider instead using e.g.
csiro.tdwg.org (and I don't think it should be tdwg.org - perhaps something
more neutral like csiro.bio-id.org. My concern there was the proliferation
of SRV records if we support the LSID protocol.
You are also correct that the big issue with this is the question of
ownership. Quite frankly, if we had believed in 2006 that institutions
would be prepared to cede responsibility for handling their identifiers to a
third party, the recommendations from the TDWG workshops would probably have
been rather different. Part of the reason for adopting LSIDs was because
institutions did not seem to want to use an identifier which might imply
that a third-party was responsible for the data.
The PURL form would have some benefits and would be a perfectly consistent
alternative. I seem to be the only person who wants to avoid an outright
capitulation to using HTTP URIs to identify objects in our domain. However,
in case anyone cares, here again are my reasons why I prefer HTTP-wrapped
non-HTTP identifiers over plain HTTP URIs:
1. The "urn:lsid:" part of the identifier serves as a clear statement of
intent which is not present with an HTTP URI. We could mandate that ONLY
http://purl.tdwg.org/ URIs count as GUIDs in our domain and that e.g.
http://www.csiro.au/ URIs cannot do so, but that seems an arrogant and
arbitrary rule. However, if we simply encourage everyone to use PURL URIs
from any domain, what separates such a URI from any HTTP URL with no planned
persistence? I see this as a short cut to casual assignment of volatile
identifiers based on web application structures and hence to rapid
identifier rot.
2. I still feel intense discomfort (pace the W3C) over adopting identifiers
prefixed HTTP:// for objects such as type specimens which have had an
important place in the literature for decades and which can expect still to
be referenced in 50 years time. Even though the HTTP protocol feels like
the air we breathe right now, it seems certain to be superseded at some
point. Do we want to use identifiers which will seem totally "retro" in the
future? The usual objection is that HTTP is certain to outlast the LSID
protocol. I agree fully, but the urn: prefix is making a statement about
naming, not about technology.
If I am alone in these feelings, the suggested PURL route may be simpler,
but we should consider what can be done to maximise the robustness of their
use.
Best wishes,
Donald
Donald Hobern, Director, Atlas of Living Australia
CSIRO Entomology, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601
Phone: (02) 62464352 Mobile: 0437990208
Email: Donald.Hobern at csiro.au
Web: http://www.ala.org.au/
-----Original Message-----
From: Hilmar Lapp [mailto:hlapp at duke.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 April 2009 4:54 PM
To: Hobern, Donald (Entomology, Black Mountain)
Cc: tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] SourceForge LSID project websites broken - role for
TDWG?
On Apr 7, 2009, at 1:55 AM, Donald.Hobern at csiro.au wrote:
> Assume further that ANIC has a script on its servers which can
> return the RDF data for these specimens, say at
http://www.csiro.au/anic/specimens/
> <catalogueNumber>. The registration process could result in the
> LSID urn:lsid:tdwg.org:csiro.anic:12345
Wouldn't that say according to your proposed usage guideline that
tdwg.org is whoGeneratedTheData and csiro.anic is
whatCollectionItBelongsTo, when in reality CSIRO generated the data
and ANIC is the collection it belongs to?
I understand why you're suggesting the LSID formatted as you do, and
you might say that the name-mangling isn't too drastic. But don't have
data owners a strong sense of ownership in their data objects and in
their collections? And more importantly, don't you think that a usage
guideline that contradicts itself (or that is bound to be internally
inconsistent) will continue to raise debate and be in the way of
broader adoption?
> and the HTTP URI http://lsid.tdwg.org/urn:lsid:tdwg.org:csiro.anic:12345
> both being mapped through to http://www.csiro.au/anic/specimens/
> 12345.
Wouldn't http://purl.tdwg.org/CSIRO/ANIC/12345 be shorter, do more
justice to the names of whoGeneratedTheData and
whatCollectionItBelongsTo, be easier to implement, and have the same
possibilities to implement caching etc, in fact using standard
software such as mod_proxy for apache?
Just some thoughts.
-hilmar
--
===========================================================
: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :
===========================================================
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:38:44 +0100
From: Roger Hyam <rogerhyam at mac.com>
Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] SourceForge LSID project websites broken -
role for TDWG?
To: Donald.Hobern at csiro.au
Cc: tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
Message-ID: <98A9FFDD-FCEF-47BF-83C2-146E21EF51AB at mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Just hosting SRV records or supplying a redirect service does not
actually provide any persistence at all to the data/metadata.
Persistence of a GUID to 500 error rather than a not found is not
helpful.
I have said in the past "If persistence is important to you then keep
your own copy." This is how it has worked for 100s of years in the
library community. If the reason for having a centralised resolution
mechanism is to try and support persistence then the centralised
service should actually cache metadata (not data). I would imagine a
scalable infrastructure would be quite simple to implement. Data could
be stored in a Lucene index or Hadoop cluster or something. It would
only be a very large hash table and only keep the latest version of
the RDF.
Without some kind of persistence mechanism the only advantage of LSIDs
is that they *look* like they are supposed to be persistent.
Unfortunately, because many people are using UUIDs as their object
identifiers LSIDs actually look like something you wouldn't want to
look at let alone expose to a user! CoL actually hide them because
they look like this:
urn:lsid:catalogueoflife.org:taxon:d755ba3e-29c1-102b-9a4a-00304854f820:ac20
09
No normal person is going to read this or type it in. I am afraid that
when people started using UUIDs in LSIDs it blew the sociological
argument for LSIDs out of the water for me. I had carefully designed
BCI identifiers to be human readable and writable like this:
urn:lsid:biocol.org:col:15670
Which would work as a foot note in a paper but only way a UUID can
work in that context is if it is hyperlinked and to be hyperlinked it
will have to be an HTTP URL underneath which begs the question of why
we are displaying a non human readable string as the human readable
part of a hyperlink! So we hide the LSID completely and have no
sociological advantage.
I understand why people used UUIDs. There are good technical reasons
especially in distributed systems.
If LSIDs are a brand then they need a "unique selling proposition" and
that implies something behind them beyond what can be had for free
from other brands. You must use LSIDs because.... "We recommend them"
is not an adequate answer.
Another point that worries me is that all discussion of LSIDs is about
how to publish them not how to consume them. LSIDs are better than
HTTP URIs for the client because... (I still can't answer this question)
Currently the reason for me tagging my data with GUIDs has to be
because it enables users to access and exploit my data in cost
effective ways they couldn't before whilst crediting me with producing
it so that I can attract funding to my organisation to curate and
collect more data.
The reason for clients using GUIDs is that it enables them to mix and
match data in ways they couldn't before so as to produce more, higher
quality scientific publications and so attract funding and kudo.
These are the selling points for GUIDs. How well do LSIDs enable them?
To summarise this overlong post we have to have a service that adds
*real value* (of an order of magnitude that crossref adds to DOIs) to
LSID usage. Without this we are better off sticking with todays
standard web technologies.
Sorry for so many words. I don't have time to write less today.
Roger
On 7 Apr 2009, at 08:17, Donald.Hobern at csiro.au wrote:
> Thanks, Hilmar.
>
> I agree that using tdwg.org as the authority for the LSID is less
> than ideal - hence my recommendation later that we should consider
> instead using e.g. csiro.tdwg.org (and I don't think it should be
> tdwg.org - perhaps something more neutral like csiro.bio-id.org. My
> concern there was the proliferation of SRV records if we support the
> LSID protocol.
>
> You are also correct that the big issue with this is the question of
> ownership. Quite frankly, if we had believed in 2006 that
> institutions would be prepared to cede responsibility for handling
> their identifiers to a third party, the recommendations from the
> TDWG workshops would probably have been rather different. Part of
> the reason for adopting LSIDs was because institutions did not seem
> to want to use an identifier which might imply that a third-party
> was responsible for the data.
>
> The PURL form would have some benefits and would be a perfectly
> consistent alternative. I seem to be the only person who wants to
> avoid an outright capitulation to using HTTP URIs to identify
> objects in our domain. However, in case anyone cares, here again
> are my reasons why I prefer HTTP-wrapped non-HTTP identifiers over
> plain HTTP URIs:
>
> 1. The "urn:lsid:" part of the identifier serves as a clear
> statement of intent which is not present with an HTTP URI. We could
> mandate that ONLY http://purl.tdwg.org/ URIs count as GUIDs in our
> domain and that e.g. http://www.csiro.au/ URIs cannot do so, but
> that seems an arrogant and arbitrary rule. However, if we simply
> encourage everyone to use PURL URIs from any domain, what separates
> such a URI from any HTTP URL with no planned persistence? I see
> this as a short cut to casual assignment of volatile identifiers
> based on web application structures and hence to rapid identifier rot.
>
> 2. I still feel intense discomfort (pace the W3C) over adopting
> identifiers prefixed HTTP:// for objects such as type specimens
> which have had an important place in the literature for decades and
> which can expect still to be referenced in 50 years time. Even
> though the HTTP protocol feels like the air we breathe right now, it
> seems certain to be superseded at some point. Do we want to use
> identifiers which will seem totally "retro" in the future? The
> usual objection is that HTTP is certain to outlast the LSID
> protocol. I agree fully, but the urn: prefix is making a statement
> about naming, not about technology.
>
> If I am alone in these feelings, the suggested PURL route may be
> simpler, but we should consider what can be done to maximise the
> robustness of their use.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Donald
>
>
> Donald Hobern, Director, Atlas of Living Australia
> CSIRO Entomology, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601
> Phone: (02) 62464352 Mobile: 0437990208
> Email: Donald.Hobern at csiro.au
> Web: http://www.ala.org.au/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hilmar Lapp [mailto:hlapp at duke.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, 7 April 2009 4:54 PM
> To: Hobern, Donald (Entomology, Black Mountain)
> Cc: tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-tag] SourceForge LSID project websites broken -
> role for TDWG?
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2009, at 1:55 AM, Donald.Hobern at csiro.au wrote:
>
>> Assume further that ANIC has a script on its servers which can
>> return the RDF data for these specimens, say at
http://www.csiro.au/anic/specimens/
>> <catalogueNumber>. The registration process could result in the
>> LSID urn:lsid:tdwg.org:csiro.anic:12345
>
> Wouldn't that say according to your proposed usage guideline that
> tdwg.org is whoGeneratedTheData and csiro.anic is
> whatCollectionItBelongsTo, when in reality CSIRO generated the data
> and ANIC is the collection it belongs to?
>
> I understand why you're suggesting the LSID formatted as you do, and
> you might say that the name-mangling isn't too drastic. But don't have
> data owners a strong sense of ownership in their data objects and in
> their collections? And more importantly, don't you think that a usage
> guideline that contradicts itself (or that is bound to be internally
> inconsistent) will continue to raise debate and be in the way of
> broader adoption?
>
>> and the HTTP URI http://lsid.tdwg.org/urn:lsid:tdwg.org:csiro.anic:12345
>> both being mapped through to http://www.csiro.au/anic/specimens/
>> 12345.
>
>
> Wouldn't http://purl.tdwg.org/CSIRO/ANIC/12345 be shorter, do more
> justice to the names of whoGeneratedTheData and
> whatCollectionItBelongsTo, be easier to implement, and have the same
> possibilities to implement caching etc, in fact using standard
> software such as mod_proxy for apache?
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> -hilmar
> --
> ===========================================================
> : Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :
> ===========================================================
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tag mailing list
> tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
tdwg-tag mailing list
tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
End of tdwg-tag Digest, Vol 36, Issue 9
***************************************
More information about the tdwg-tag
mailing list