[tdwg-tag] SourceForge LSID project websites broken - role for TDWG?

Hilmar Lapp hlapp at duke.edu
Tue Apr 7 08:54:15 CEST 2009

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 Lapp  -:-  Durham, NC  -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list