[tdwg-tag] Specimen identifiers [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Paul Murray]

On 25/02/2012, at 11:46 PM, Roderic Page wrote:

> Put another way, if identifiers are cheap to create, and there's no expectation that they resolve, then we can end up with identifiers that have no value, in which case why would I use them?

Which is why I made the point that commitment on the part of the organisation is key to the process. t has to be treated as serious business.

One manifestation of this, for instance, is that AFD type specimen data available at our SPARQL service here is in blank RDF nodes attached to the names. I (the techo) *could* simply create IDs for them from the database sequence number, but it is terribly important that I not do so.

When we do expose data from the herbarium database, there will be identifiers for the specimens that will be correctly build and of ongoing value. The identifications in that database, BTW, have APNI name ids on them. So it will all link together as it should.


If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.