GLIS-PGRFA-L Archives

Global Information System on PGRFA

GLIS-PGRFA-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Date:
Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:08:34 +0100
Reply-To:
Global Information System on PGRFA <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Marsella Marco <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Sender:
Global Information System on PGRFA <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (54 lines)
Welcome to the discussion, Matija!

As you know, the “Permanent” part of PUID is the most challenging one because it involves not only technical issues but rather, and so much more importantly, organisational issues.

However, I believe your question is somehow misstated as there is no unique party "responsible of maintaining the generated PUID forever”, but rather a group of organisations and systems that, together, work to maintain the association between the PUID and the PGRFA entity valid “forever”. In this view, and I agree, some even define the PUID as such association between the entity and the identifier string.

According to our view of GLIS and what we have discussed in the past weeks, the involved systems and organisations are:

1) the DOI system, responsible of maintaining the DOI resolver infrastructure. This is a highly redundant infrastructure (17 sites worldwide) that has proved to be very reliable so far. The International DOI Foundation (IDF) has a sound business model, is backed by international standards and contractual arrangements have been established to preserve the DOI resolver system even in case the IDF should evaporate in the future. Please note that, even if the DOI resolver should cease to exist, the fact on GLISusers would be the impossibility of resolving the DOI using a third-party website. In other words, the users would have to know to go to GLIS to resolve that DOI, something that is considered normal in other PUID types such as LSID or UUID where the presence of a central registry is optional;

2) GLIS, the authority that originally assigned the DOI to the PGRFA, would be responsible of maintaining its own functions of (i) resolving the DOI to a landing page on the PGRFA with available metadata and the list of associated destinations that have been accumulated over time. Of course, maintaining GLIS “forever” is quite a challenge, but the entire ITPGRFA is designed to last “forever” and Easy-SMTA has already accepted such challenge for its own role;

3) the genebank or other user who originally registered the PGRFA in GLIS (receiving the newly minted DOI in return) will be responsible of maintaining the detail page to which the initial destination provided during the PGRFA registration would point to (using a URL or maybe a PURL). If any change occurs to the genebank or user’s organisation that would invalidate such destination, that genebank or organisation would have to take responsibility to update the destination accordingly.

As you will immediately see, points 2) and 3) apply regardless of the adopted PUID type.

Point 1), i.e. the function of a central registry that is able to route the user request to the appropriate system is so useful that hoping to do without is, in my opinon, not a very smart idea. Beside, the presence of a central registry guarantees that the PUID is truly “globally unique”, something that other identifier types may not claim with the same certainty. Surely, any central registry is a potential point of weakness, but I think that credit must be given to the IDF for having designed a very reliable and durable system.

I hope this answers you question.

Best regards

M


> On 12 Mar 2015, at 17:00, Matija Obreza <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I’m late to the party and I could not find any exchange in the archives about the maintenance of the PUIDs assigned to germplasm.
> 
> Once the PUID of one accession has been generated and assigned by GLIS based on some “kernel fields”, who is responsible to maintain the generated PUID forever (addressing the “Permanent” in PUID)?
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Matija Obreza
> Global Crop Diversity Trust
> Platz der Vereinten Nationen 7
> 53113 Bonn, Germany
> Office: +49 228 85427 128
> www.croptrust.org
> 
> Conserving Crop Diversity, Forever
> ########################################################################
> 
> To unsubscribe from the GLIS-PGRFA-L list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=GLIS-PGRFA-L&A=1

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the GLIS-PGRFA-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=GLIS-PGRFA-L&A=1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2