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

Gregor Hagedorn g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com
Tue Mar 31 06:55:59 CEST 2009

2009/3/23 Paul Kirk <p.kirk at cabi.org>:
> In fungi we have MycoBank and citing MB510023 (for Quambalaria coyrecup
> T. Paap 2008, for humans to read) and having a true GUID (not yet
> implemented) or LSID (implemented:
> http://lsid.tdwg.org/urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:names:510023)
> 'underneath' is closer to the GenBank model which everyone accepts.
> Paul


Who will educate all biologists about the difference between the lsids
and their use? And I specifically mean the non-taxonomists that use
species names. In "normal" resources like PDF published articles, html
species pages, Drupal or Wiki-based information,
urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:names:510023 is useful only for human
display. But it will be used.

http://lsid.tdwg.org/urn:lsid:indexfungorum.org:names:510023 will work
as a clickable link to a web resource and can be read by semantic web
machine reasoners. But to create this, external knowledge about
resolution mechanism is expected from every biologist in the world.
Some help material to be found somewhere may instruct them: if in your
publication you want to create a link that is usable by humans or
semantic web machine reasoners, you have to convert the lsid by
prefixing it with http://lsid.tdwg.org/, http://lsid.gbif.org/, or
perhaps lsid.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.

The mistrust in http current URL management practices is certainly
valid. But this is a social issue, not a technical. The mistrust into
http as a protocol I consider invalid: who is willing to bet that http
will disappear before urn:lsid? And we would simply introduce resolver
THEN (p2k5://http.tdwg.org/http://persistent-identifier.indexfungorum.org/names/510023).



More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list