Dear All
I have also only used DOIs and LSIDs and not ARK and would agree with the majority of the detailed comments made by Éamonn and colleagues.
Based on previous experience I would favour DOIs as they are becoming more and more widely used and as such are likely to become more permanent that then LSID and ARK. I think this is essential criteria as we look to the future.
As well as the more formal use of DOIs, they are also being used in some very creative data citation project such as Figshare.
Figshare was created as a community based project and is now being supported by publishing houses and funders clearly illustrating how scalable DOIs are and how they can be used for a multitude of formats and media.
http://figshare.com/
Ruth
Dr Ruth Bastow
GPC Executive Director
[log in to unmask] <applewebdata:[log in to unmask]>
http://globalplantcouncil.org/ <http://globalplantcouncil.org/>
> On 5 Mar 2015, at 12:51, ةamonn س Tuama [GBIF] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Francisco, Elizabeth and colleagues,
> Find attached some input which I put together with my colleagues, Tim Robertson and Kyle Braak. We focus on DOIs and LSIDs as the GBIF Secretariat does not have practical experience with ARKs. In addition, our comments on DOIs are based on experience with DataCite only.
> Best regards,
> Éamonn
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Éamonn Ó Tuama, M.Sc., Ph.D. ([log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>),
> Senior Programme Officer for Interoperability,
> Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat,
> Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100, Copenhagen Ø, DENMARK
> Phone: +45 3532 1494; Fax: +45 3532 1480
>
>
>
> From: Global Information System on PGRFA [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Arnaud, Elizabeth (Bioversity-France)
> Sent: 04 March 2015 12:44
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BULK] Re: Week 2 - Analysis of the PUID candidates against the requirements identified in W1
>
> Dear Francisco and colleagues,
>
> I must confess that my technical knowledge is rather limited to make an expert scoring of each solution and it would require some literature review on my side. I rapidly consulted bioinformatics colleagues in Bioversity but they cannot provide a quick comparative assessment of the 3 solutions as they did not experienced the 3.
>
> My personal past experience resides with the Generation Challenge Programme technical discussions that led to the adoption of the LSID which was the most convenient at that time (around 7 years ago). DOI were not yet in perspective. However, Prof. Rod Page, University of Glasgow and GBIF Science Committee chair, wrote: 'I think my concerns about LSIDs (and I was an early advocate of LSIDs) stem from trying to marry them to the Semantic web, which seems the obvious technology for constructing applications to query lots of distributed metadata.' (http://iphylo.blogspot.fr/2007/06/rethinking-lsids-versus-http-uri.html <http://iphylo.blogspot.fr/2007/06/rethinking-lsids-versus-http-uri.html>). GBIF that holds 521, 716, 000 species occurrences now takes a move out of LSID towards the DOI and it may be interesting to get their feedback on why they did the choice and express it according to the listed attributes?
>
> I hope that we have in this group the relevant experts who can indicate the + and minus of each solution.
> Kind regards,
> Elizabeth
>
> On 03/03/15 11:37, "Lopez, Francisco (AGDT)" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>> we are now ready to open Week 2 of this electronic consultation on PUIDs for PGRFA. This week will be dedicated to analyze and compare the three candidate PUIDs that have been identified during the COGIS meeting (ARK, DOI and LSID) against the list of requirements that has ben discussed during last week.
>>
>> For this purpose, we have prepared the attached the scoring table. For each requirement, we invite each one of you to fill-in the attached table assigning a score to each PUID candidate as follows:
>>
>> 1: requirement not supported or poorly supported, worst of the three
>> 2: good support, middle tier
>> 3: excellent support, best of the three
>>
>> Duplicate scores are allowed in the same row. Optionally, you can add a brief comment about the scores you have assigned. During the week, we will compile all scores received and circulate a summary table. A final summary table with all scores and comments as well as a summary report will be circulated at the end of the week.
>>
>> Thank you.
>> Regards,
>> Treaty Secretariat
>>
>>
>>
>> ########################################################################
>>
>> 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 <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 <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 <https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=GLIS-PGRFA-L&A=1><W2_PUID_Scoring_150303_GBIF.docx>
########################################################################
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
|