Dear colleagues,
We would like to thank you for the constructive discussion over the first week. We have taken into account your comments and we attach herewith the updated list of requirements.
Additionally, we would like also take this opportunity to share with you a quick summary on some of the major topics of discussions:
1.- The entities we refer to are plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) in a broad sense as defined by the International Treaty and the Standard Material Transfer Agreement.
2.- There is no intention to redefine accession numbers, collecting numbers etc, but rather to capture such relevant existing identifiers in the metadata associated with the PUID. The metadata (including existing crop ontologies) and PUIDs relations to be used will be discussed during week 3.
3.- There has been some debate on the issue of the cost. Given the very significant cost-reduction applied to DOIs, this issue has been largely eliminated (see http://ezid.cdlib.org/home/pricing). Rather, there is the understanding that we need to take into account not also the possible initial cost related to the acquisition of the PUID, but also and foremost the design, implementation and maintenance of the whole system on the long term, as this may have cost implications that by far outweigh the technology acquisition costs.
4.- The use of the term “Multiple resolution” may have created some misunderstanding. Strictly speaking, “Multiple resolution” refers to the possibility of choosing a copy (among the several ones available) of the (digital) entity the PUID refers to based on criteria such as acquisition cost or access speed. This acceptation clearly refers to digital publications or media that may be available from different sources and the user is given the option to choose the most convenient option, but this is clearly not our case. Our intention was to allow the accumulation of multiple destinations associated to the PUID where different information can be obtained. For instance, upon initial registration from a genebank, a PUID assigned to a PGRFA would most likely resolve to a basic set of metadata fields including a link back to the genebank system where additional information can be found. If, later on, a DNA sequencing procedure is performed on that PGRFA, a new, additional link can be appended in the metadata record pointing to this new source of information. This way, the PUID will resolve to “Multiple destinations” (which may be a more correct term than “Multiple resolution”). By adding suitable metadata to each destination, both humans and client application would be able to select those containing information of their choice (in the example above, for instance, I would be able to obtain only link to sites where DNA sequencing is available).
5.- Acceptance by major publishers was indicated as “a plus” which clearly means that it is not a mandatory requirement but rather a desirable feature.
As announced a few days ago, week 2 of our discussion will focus on the joint analysis of the PUID candidates identified by the Expert Consultation in San Diego.
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
|