Re: [BioRDF] Taxonomic Databases Working Group and LSIDs

[Donald Hobern]

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 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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