By local, I only meant not globally unique. If an agreement can be reached (e.g, via globally unique institution codes) that allows a combination of institution code and accession number to serve as a PUID that also meets the other requirements (e.g., multiple resolution) specified in week one, I am all for adopting them and not creating new identifiers. However, I find it hard (but not impossible) to see how the adoption of local identifiers as PUIDs is going to meet all of the requirements (e.g., institution codes and accession numbers could be incorporated into DOIs, but that affects opacity). Maybe some of the requirements are less crucial than others? Another point to bear in mind is that the PUIDs are to be used for exchange of information by computers, thus having a human readable ID is not that important. Human readable labels (e.g., based on institution code and accession labels) can always be applied for human applications like publishing. This is another reason that metadata is so important. Ramona ------------------------------------------------------ Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Diederichsen, Axel < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > > If you want genebanks on board it may be good to start with them and look > where they are regarding the documentation. Otherwise we may design > something that is fine but not related to the base. The genebank > identifiers are not for local use only as we have always encouraged the > genebank users to refer to them in publications, albeit with mixed success. > > > > Greetings, > > > > Axel > > > > *From:* Global Information System on PGRFA [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Ramona Walls > *Sent:* March-13-15 2:00 PM > > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Metadata fields > > > > While I whole-heartedly support the proposal to ask genebanks to register > unique institution codes, I think this is drifting a bit off topic. The > institution codes and accession numbers are to be added as metadata linked > to a PUID, not to be used as unique identifiers themselves. The goal is to > provide a single, globally unique, persistent identifier for each > object/entity (i.e. PGRFA) that can link to existing and local identifiers > such as those used by genebanks. > > One important point, because there are likely to be multiple local > identifiers linked to a PGRFA, it is not sufficient to just use the MCPD > descriptors as metadata "properties" with cardinality >1. There needs to be > a way to associate the correct institution code with the correct accession > number and therefore a need for stronger semantics. The DOI kernal property > "RelatedIdentifier" could be used, but must have a unique ID as its target. > > Ramona > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Ramona L. Walls, Ph.D. > Scientific Analyst, The iPlant Collaborative, University of Arizona > Research Associate, Bio5 Institute, University of Arizona > Laboratory Research Associate, New York Botanical Garden > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Diederichsen, Axel < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > So, perhaps the first steps to arrive at some standard numbering are to > (1) request genebanks to implement an essential minimum of the FAO > Multicrop passport descriptors and, where necessary, to help genebanks to > do so, (2) make each genebank suggesting unique accession identifiers, > which may require combinations of the two or more of the essential FAO > Multi passport descriptors, and (3) ensure all genebanks/collections have > a unique Institute Code registered, for example, in WIEWS? The latter would > require that FAO will continue to exist and to maintain WIEWS. Perhaps FOA > is more permament than the places that assign DOIs? > > Axel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Global Information System on PGRFA [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matija Obreza > Sent: March-13-15 12:05 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Metadata fields > > Following Axel’s message, these are accessions with INSTCODE=RUS001 and > ACCENUMB=10 > > https://www.genesys-pgr.org/acn/RUS001/10 > > Genesys PGR portal and probably EURISCO use genus to differentiate between > these accessions. > > > As for the mandatory fields: INSTCODE, ACCENUMB and GENUS are a must, > everything else must be optional. > > Note that in the odd case where an accession is reclassified (or taxonomy > changes) it may be assigned a different genus and the connection is lost > (hence the PUIDs). > > > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > ######################################################################## 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