W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2006

RE: [BioRDF] Taxonomic Databases Working Group and LSIDs

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:01:00 -0400
Message-ID: <EBBD956B8A9002479B0C9CE9FE14A6C201093094@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Donald Hobern" <dhobern@gbif.org>
Cc: "public-semweb-lifesci hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "Eric Neumann" <eneumann@teranode.com>
Donald,
 
For the most part, http URIs can be designed (using specialized
prefixes) to provide all the benefits of any new URI scheme or URN
sub-scheme, plus more.  For example, a specialized http URI prefix such
as "http://lsid.tdwg.org? <http://lsid.tdwg.org?> " could be
functionally equivalent to the prefix "urn:lsid:" that would otherwise
begin an LSID URI.  Software that is programmed to recognize the
"urn:lsid:" prefix and apply the LSID resolution mechanism could instead
recognize the "http://lsid.tdwg.org? <http://lsid.tdwg.org/?> " prefix
and apply the LSID resolution mechanism.  Was this kind of approach
considered?  If so, why was it deemed inadequate?
 
For more details, see my paper on "Converting New URI Schemeds or URN
Sub-Schemes to HTTP" at
http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/ <http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/>  .
See also the TAG's draft finding on "URNs, Namespaces and Registries" at
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50 . 
 
Thanks

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
dbooth@hp.com
Phone: +1 617 629 8881
  

 


________________________________

	From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Donald Hobern
	Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:15 AM
	To: Eric Neumann
	Cc: public-semweb-lifesci hcls
	Subject: Re: [BioRDF] Taxonomic Databases Working Group and
LSIDs
	
	
	Dear Eric,
	
	Thank you for mentioning TDWG's adoption of LSIDs.  The
Taxonomic Databases Working Group (http://www.tdwg.org/) is an
international association focused on developing collaboration between
biological database projects.  Its focus is primarily on whole-organism
data (natural history collections, herbaria, field observations,
identification tools, etc.) and taxonomic information (the name does not
adequately reflect the breadth of its interests).
	
	Up to now, TDWG has developed models for data exchange using XML
Schema and has had no reliable mechanisms for cross-referencing data
objects between different resources.  A 30-month project is under way to
revise the organisation's processes and architecture (funded by the
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation).  Part of this work has been to
examine technological options for using globally unique identifiers
within TDWG data standards.  Two workshops were held earlier this year
to consider possible options (including LSID, DOI, ARK and PURL).  Our
conclusion was that LSID best suited our requirements.  The reasons
included:
	

	*	LSIDs provide an existing standard approach for
retrieving data and metadata (this would need to be defined e.g. for a
PURL-based approach) 
	*	LSIDs can be safely assigned to permanent objects and
potentially remain available indefinitely for dereferencing 
		
	*	LSIDs can be issued and resolved by any organisation
without any requirement for a central LSID authority (this egalitarian
approach suited the community better than the model adopted e.g. by DOI)

	*	There is no special cost associated with issuing large
numbers of LSIDs, even for temporary data objects (in contrast again
with e.g. DOI)
		
	*	LSIDs are clearly not just URLs - we perceived social
benefits in requiring issuers to think about what they were doing
(rather than just using existing URLs)
		
	*	LSIDs mesh perfectly with a recognised need in TDWG to
move away from modeling with XML Schema to adopt RDF-based models 

	Our focus right now is to develop best practices for the use of
LSIDs for scientific names and for specimens in natural history
collections.  We have a number of activities under way to develop new
LSID software components (a .NET version of the LSID stack, native
handling of LSID requests in TDWG tools for data sharing).
	
	More information can be found at:
http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php
	
	Many thanks,
	
	Donald
	
	------------------------------------------------------------
	Donald Hobern (dhobern@gbif.org)
	Deputy Director for Informatics 
	Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat 
	Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
	Tel: +45-35321483   Mobile: +45-28751483   Fax: +45-35321480
	------------------------------------------------------------

	Eric Newmann wrote:
	

			I would like to point out the Taxonomic
Databases Working Group (TDWG) 
			and their work with trying to establish a system
of Global Unique 
			Identifiers (GUIDs).
			
	
http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=GUID2Report
			
			At this point in time they are recommending
(within their community) 
			the use of LSIDs WITH metadata in the form of
RDF.
			
			I would like to propose that we include this on
the list of examples 
			for the LSID/URI discussion in BioRDF (just
added to 
	
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLSIG_BioRDF_Subgroup/Tasks/URI_Best_Practice
			s/LSID _Pros_%26_Cons). I think they have some
great global examples 
			of how to use such identifiers.
			
			Eric
			
			Eric Neumann, PhD
			co-chair, W3C Healthcare and Life Sciences,
			and Senior Director Product Strategy
			Teranode Corporation
			83 South King Street, Suite 800
			Seattle, WA 98104
			+1 (781)856-9132
			www.teranode.com
			    
Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2006 19:01:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:44 GMT