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]),

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). 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]> 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

 

 


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