<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>In response to Rob, I am not convinced that unique, even resolvable,<br>
identifiers are by themselves going to help us 'discover digital<br>
resources on the internet'. We are going to need services to realize<br>
that dream. But hey, that what these damn windmills are for... Let's<br>
go get 'em...<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Yes Jim, we know that. And the service is what BiSciCol would provide. We are trying to lay down the groundwork for doing so. Implementing GUIDs is the first important step. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nico</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Chuck Miller <<a href="mailto:Chuck.Miller@mobot.org">Chuck.Miller@mobot.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Rob,<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">I suspect you're not the only one that disagrees, so no problem. I just can't escape the reality that this thread has continued for years on different lists, repeating the same points over and over. DOI as the biodiversity informatics
solution appeared around 2006 or so I think, although LSID was on a roll about then and there was a lot of hope for that approach. True, LSID has waned and DOI has continued and as a tangible solution it is definitely there for the future. I just wish all
those other people would stop pointing out the flaws (like botanical duplicates), then we could reach consensus. What do you say, Jim?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Chuck<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">-----Original Message-----<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">From: <a href="mailto:robgur@gmail.com">robgur@gmail.com</a> [mailto:robgur@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert Guralnick<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 5:39 PM<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">To: Chuck Miller<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Cc: Jim Croft; <a href="mailto:nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu">
nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Subject: Re: [Nhcoll-l] global unique identifiers and naturalhistory collections<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> Hi Chuck --- I respectfully disagree. If we want to follow a clear set of best practices that can assure that our digital records have persistent, globally unique and resolvable identifiers, and that the solution can work now and not
in ten years or never, then we have a very limited set of options. I'd like to hear more, but the comment that "Only parts of the problem can be solved with any one of them" is not my view. Or at minimum, there is a conflation of what the problem is. The
problem that I raised is how we discover digital records that are on the Internet quickly and effectively, and provide means to begin tracking these objects (and by the way, thanks so much for all the comments from everyone out there)!<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">You want to talk about interlinking data, that is a discussion about Linked Open Data and the Semantic Web, and really, that is moot for us unless we can persistently and uniquely and resolvably point to the things that are out there.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Best, Rob<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Chuck Miller <<a href="mailto:Chuck.Miller@mobot.org">Chuck.Miller@mobot.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">It seems in these discussions that multiple use cases are addressed in the same thread. As a result, the discussion circles endlessly because the solution to one use case may be orthogonal to another and vice versa and around we go.
Based on the number of words written and years consumed on the topic, it appears that identifiers for biodiversity informatics at large is far too diverse and complex to be completely solved with a single solution, like DOI, UUID, GUID, LSID, you name it.
Only parts of the problem can be solved with any one of them.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">A more segmented but integrated approach seems to be needed and at the core of it would be a "master data switch service" like that which Jim describes because it would presume the complexity of the biodiversity data universe and attempt
to order it. With a comprehensive switching service, any ID could be cross-correlated to another ID after those who have the correlated information made it available to the service.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Chuck<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">-----Original Message-----<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">From: <a href="mailto:nhcoll-l-bounces@mailman.yale.edu">
nhcoll-l-bounces@mailman.yale.edu</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">[mailto:nhcoll-l-bounces@mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Croft<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 3:57 PM<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">To: Robert Guralnick<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Cc: <a href="mailto:nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu">nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Subject: Re: [Nhcoll-l] global unique identifiers and naturalhistory<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">collections<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">This group's concept of GUID and mine appear to be quite different:<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_unique_identifier">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_unique_identifier</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">We are using 'GUID' as local shorthand for something we are going to<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">make up, right? If that is the case, we should really give it another<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">name, because GUID is occupied and formally defined in information<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">space. (Loving the irony of the duplication here.)<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">And I agree with your comment about the human opacity of supermarket barcodes. Nobody number checks them. They are just accepted unintelligible infrastructure that make machines go 'beep' and cause stuff to happen.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">The reason I and attracted to UUIDs is that you do not need a 'social infrastructure' to dole them out and control who gets what. If you need one, you just grab one, and within the bounds of human probability, it is going to be unique.
There is something very elegant about this that appeals to the inner geek.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">While we are considering resolvability mechanisms, and I am not yet willing to concede that this has to be in he number itself, we also need to consider mapping mechanisms. Making sure the ID is unique is one thing. But there will always
be different IDs relating to the same or similar concepts in various ways (congruent, contains, is part of, is sort of like, etc.) and these will have to be mapped to each other.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">The is is especially important in botany, where the same collection can be represented as different specimens in different institutions (or even within the same institution).<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">jim<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Robert Guralnick <<a href="mailto:Robert.Guralnick@colorado.edu">Robert.Guralnick@colorado.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> Doug --- I appreciate (and also groan the teensiest bit) when<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">reading this lucid description of ALL the challenges we face with<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">such heterogeneous practices. I think you have made really nicely clear<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">just how difficult things are! Two guid best practices in our blog<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">post were: 1) GUIDs must be assigned as close to the source as<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">possible. For example, if data is collected in the field, the<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">identifier for that data needs to be assigned in the field and<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">attached to the field database with ownership initially stated by the<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">maintainers of that database. For existing data, assignment can be<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">made in the source database. 2) GUIDs propagate downstream to other<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">systems. Creating new GUIDs in warehouses that duplicate existing<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">ones is bad practice, and thus aggregators need to honor well-curated<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">GUIDs from providers. That jives with what you are saying, I think.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Please also appreciate that the kind of GUID we are suggesting is a<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Digital Object Identifier or DOI. The DOI website has a great<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">description of the value of using DOIs. It says "The DOI system<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">provides a technical and social infrastructure for the registration<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">and use of persistent interoperable identifiers for use on digital<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">networks." Those words resonate with me strongly. DOIs are opaque<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">and not tied to terms used in our databases such as collections codes<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">or catalog numbers. I continue to be convinced this makes sense. It<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">means the DOI is a wrapper around a specimen, or metadata record, or<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">digital surrogate (e.g. an image of a specimen) that points to those<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">objects and allows them to be found. This is just smart, at least in<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">my opinion.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Best, Rob<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Doug Yanega <<a href="mailto:dyanega@ucr.edu">dyanega@ucr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">The thread sprouted and grew like a weed over the weekend, so I'll<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">try to collate things:<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Dirk Neumann wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">However, it is crucial that the registration numbers are tied to<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">collections and specimens in the collection, therefore I would<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">rather favour to have the museum acronyms & specimen numbers<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">included in such a code (what would be easily feasible if using a<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">combined alpha numeric & alphabetical coding system). Problem here<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">surely lies with the entomological collections, which can't be<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">individualised in near future, but in the light of ongoing barcoding<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">campaigns one should have in mind that many modern samples (which do<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">have e.g. individual barcodes generated by BOLD) do have unique<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">identifiers as soon as they are processed (this applies also for<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">historic specimens picked form the pin)<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">- even if the analyses fails.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">and Mark O'Brien wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Reading that whole blog entry gave me a headache. We have had<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">unique museum identifiers for many years, starting with printed<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">lists back in the 1960s. If you dissociate a museum acronym from<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">a specimen number, it will cause confusion and perhaps cause more<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">problems. Let's say that someone uses a specimen from the UMMZ that<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">has a record number UMMZI-0023578. In the resulting publication, it<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">becomes a part of a type series, and anyone reading that paper would<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">be able to determine (without even having to go online) that it is<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">from the Univ. Michigan Museum of Zoology Insect collection. If it<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">was coded instead with 081-211118-87650 it means nothing without an<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">intermediary decoding via some online portal. I know the old KISS<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">(Keep it Simple, Stupid) adage means more now than it ever did,<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">since people have a tendency to make very complex systems because they can.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">These two comments relate to something extremely important: GUID<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">labels, even those with acronyms like UMMZ, absolutely DO NOT give<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">any information about which collection a specimen is from. We have<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">specimens in the UCR collection, including holotypes, bearing GUIDs<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">with codens such as AMNH, EMEC, USNM, MEI, and so forth - some of<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">which were traded to us, some donated to us, and some which always<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">were ours, but were simply databased somewhere else (e.g., the AMNH).<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">We even have three different codens for our own specimens (UCRC ENT,<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">UCR ENT, UCREM), and a multi-instiutional coden (UCIS, for<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">"University of California Insect Survey", specimens from which are<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">spread throughout several different UC collections), resulting from<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">different historical databasing efforts. Conversely, there are over<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">50 insect collections around the world that now contain specimens<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">with "UCRC ENT" or "UCR ENT" barcode labels on them, simply because<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">those specimens were sent here, given GUIDs and databased here, and<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">returned.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">The bottom line is that any assigned GUIDs absolutely MUST be<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">treated as information-free. This particular point has, in fact,<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">recently caused a rather serious debate within the ICZN, when an<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">author recently included a coden-based GUID in a new taxon<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">description but did not specify the type repository. Failure to<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">specify a type depository is, after 1999, grounds for a name being<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">unavailable, and some Commissioners were apparently unaware that<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">GUIDs did not always correlate to where a specimen was deposited.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">They do not, thus there is controversy as to whether such a<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">description is valid under the Code.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">I will note that Dave Furth already posted the "official" list of<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">entomological collection codens, so the entomological community is<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">*trying* to use a standard, though there are some conflicts and<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">omissions relative to other sources (e.g., DiscoverLife). To<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">continue in that vein:<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Bill Poly wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Expanding on what Mark just wrote, standardization of institutional<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">codes for museums has been going on for decades:<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">1) <a href="http://www.biodiversitycollectionindex.org/static/index.html">
http://www.biodiversitycollectionindex.org/static/index.html</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">2) Leviton, A.E., R.H. Gibbs, Jr., E. Heal, and C.E. Dawson. 1985.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Standards in herpetology and ichthyology: Part I. Standard symbolic<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">codes for institutional resource collections in herpetology and<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">ichthyology. Copeia 1985(3): 802-832.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">3) Leviton, A.E. and R.H. Gibbs, Jr. 1988. Standards in<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">herpetology and ichthyology. Standard symbolic codes for institution<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">resource collections in herpetology and ichthyology. Supplement No.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">1: additions and corrections. Copeia 1988(1): 280-282.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">4) <a href="http://www.asih.org/codons.pdf">http://www.asih.org/codons.pdf</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">These acronyms and associated catalog numbers are used widely in the<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">literature. What is the need for a new system that is "global?"<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">and John Reiss wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">It would seem that a solution would be to develop a unique numeric<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">collection code that would go along with (rather than replace) the<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">traditional alphabetic one. Thus a specimen might be something like:<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">13429 AAU 001 for Addis Addaba University specimen 001<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">and<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">11946 AAU 001 for Aarhus University specimen 001<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">The problem here is that we DO need a *global* registry of<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">institutional codens, because you will never, ever, get people to<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">RELABEL specimens that they have already labeled; do you think that<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">the people in Aarhus, whose specimen AAU 001 looks fine to them, are<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">going to remove that label and replace it with a label that says<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">"11946 AAU 001"? Are you going to pay them for the labor that this<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">would require? Can you track down all the AAU labels on specimens<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">they have sent to other institutions, and replace those, too? There<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">will, inevitably, be cases where there are genuinely non-unique<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">GUIDs and you can bet the owners of the specimens in question will<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">not budge about changing their labels OR their digital records.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">There may not BE a solution for this once it has occurred, but at<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">least with a single authoritative registry of codens we can<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">*prevent* as much of these conflicts as possible.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Rob Guralnick wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Finally, I keep thinking about how much we scan barcodes all the<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">time and don't care at all about the numbers in those barcodes that get us<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">onto airplanes, or that get us groceries. Between sticking guids in<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">QR codes or cutting and pasting them and resolving their contents to<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">a record, does anyone _ever_ really transcribe an identifier number<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">for number? Maybe its me, but I just can't see this issue about<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">error correction being relevant. What am I missing?<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">What you are missing is that lots of institutions are using, or have<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">used, GUIDs that are not barcoded. The UCIS GUIDs developed and<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">employed by Peter Kevan and Ev Schlinger in the 1970s were<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">batch-printed by a computer program running a ribbon printer. That's<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">over 300,000 specimens, in at least 5 major collections, with GUID<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">labels that have no barcodes - are you going to insist that all of<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">the UC collections containing these specimens remove those GUIDs and<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">replace them with new ones with barcodes?<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">That aside, this example points to another ugly problem - when one<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">specimen has either multiple GUIDs or multiple different records<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">under the same GUID. That is, some of the UC collections have in<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">fact ignored the UCIS GUID labels and attached new GUID labels to<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">those specimens - and in at least a few cases, those original GUIDs<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">had actually been databased and put online. The result is that you<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">can have one specimen for which there are two different online GUIDs<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">- plus the associated duplicated data. Also, many institutions have<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">databasing initiatives which make use of specimens borrowed from<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">*other* institutions, and sometimes they have work-study students<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">doing this, who simply add a new GUID and database it even if a<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">specimen already has one ("otherwise how are the data supposed to<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">get into our database?") - which results in the same problem of<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">multiple GUIDs for one specimen. But even cases where the students<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">are told to use pre-existing GUIDs are problematic, when those<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">students are told to enter the data. Why is that a problem? Because<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">commonly the source institution has already entered the data for<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">that same specimen in their own database! The odds that two people<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">in different places transcribing the same label will produce<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">*absolutely identical* database records is nearly zero, if only<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">because it is exceedingly rare for two institutions to use the exact<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">same databasing software (same fields, same menu options, etc.),<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">plus the possibility that one or the other data entry person might<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">make a typo or omission that results in non-identicality. If one<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">then looks online and sees two different sets of data under the same<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">GUID, how does one decide<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">*which* set to trust?<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">My point is that even a GUID that is perfect in every way (even if<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">it has a barcode, and an embedded DOI or whatever) can still be<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">defeated by the simple fact that people who are databasing specimens<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">rarely (if ever) implement the policy to NEVER enter data for a<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">specimen that has come from another institution and has a GUID on<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">it, and instead to (1) request a data file from the loaning<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">institution, and<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">(2) only *use* that data file, rather than *exporting* its contents<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">into their own database (which typically entails converting it into<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">a different format). GUIDs do not solve all of the problems, because<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">some problems are related to how people do things. As Robert<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Heinlein said, "It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">fools are so ingenious." (ironically, this quote itself is a<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">pseudo-duplicate, as at least four famous authors have said<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">something nearly identical<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">- including Edward Teller, Douglas Adams, and Gene Brown - on top of<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">much older but anonymous quotes).<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Sincerely,<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">--<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">phone: (951) 827-4315 (standard disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> <a href="http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html">http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Nhcoll-l mailing list<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:Nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu">Nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l">http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Nhcoll-l mailing list<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:Nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu">Nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l">http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">--<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">_________________<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Jim Croft ~ <a href="mailto:jim.croft@gmail.com">jim.croft@gmail.com</a> ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
<a href="http://about.me/jrc">http://about.me/jrc</a> 'Without the freedom to criticize, there is no true praise.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">- Pierre Beaumarchais<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.'<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">- Mark Twain<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point of doubtful sanity.'<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">- Robert Frost<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Nhcoll-l mailing list<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:Nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu">Nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l">http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l</a><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
_________________<br>
Jim Croft ~ <a href="mailto:jim.croft@gmail.com">jim.croft@gmail.com</a> ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
<a href="http://about.me/jrc">http://about.me/jrc</a><br>
'Without the freedom to criticize, there is no true praise.<br>
- Pierre Beaumarchais<br>
'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to<br>
pause and reflect.'<br>
- Mark Twain<br>
'A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point<br>
of doubtful sanity.'<br>
- Robert Frost<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Nhcoll-l mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu">Nhcoll-l@mailman.yale.edu</a><br>
http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div apple-content-edited="true"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><br>
Nico Cellinese, Ph.D.<br>
Assistant Curator, Botany & Informatics<br>
Joint Assistant Professor, Department of Biology<br>
<br>
Florida Museum of Natural History<br>
University of Florida<br>
354 Dickinson Hall, PO Box 117800<br>
Gainesville, FL 32611-7800, U.S.A.<br>
Tel. 352-273-1979<br>
Fax 352-846-1861<br>
<a href="http://cellinese.blogspot.com/">http://cellinese.blogspot.com/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</span></div>
<br>
</body>
</html>