Dear Colleagues, In the attached I inserted a few comments. As I see the PUI from the ongoing discussions, this concept will, if accepted in the broad sense, grow exponentially at rate that ridicules the snowball effect. If all things listed in the initial e-mail (genebank accessions, fragments of them, seed lots, selections, gene sequences, individuals, publications...) will receive a PUI this will not help the cause of the GLIS but create a global and eventually cosmic catalogue of everything. The GlIS has not this purpose. I think we need to restrict this and perhaps need to focus more on what we want to achieve, and not so much on what machines can all do. I would suggest a very pragmatic approach. The old FAO WEWS system had unique institution codes, which could be followed by the accession identifier in the respective institution. That could serve as a PUI and restrict this concept to genebank accessions to start with. As this suggestion may be too simplistic, I in any case need to strongly advice not to strive replacing the genebank accession numbers, which have a different nature but very useful purpose. I also strictly oppose to degrade in wording an accession number of an organized genebank to a local identifier. It is a well accepted and useful identifier of a usually living entity that can be heterogeneous, changes over time, ages, dies, mutates and needs for sure a lot of care. I saw some wording in that suggest accession numbers are outdated. Best regards, Axel Diederichsen From: Global Information System on PGRFA [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dag Endresen Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 11:56 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: W1 -Task Force on Permanent Unique Identifiers: Requirements Regarding #21 Identification of fragments, I agree with the concern raised by Eugene and Stephan. My understanding of what could be an example of a fragment (of an accession entity) might be seeds of an accession from a given harvest year (I have seen this thing to be called a batch). And if there is a need to identify such "fragment"-things, a clean opaque PUID for such things would generally be preferred compared to to appending codes to the accession-level PUID identifier string. Perhaps there are other use cases, but in general I agree with these concerns. Dag ________________________________ 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