An excellent idea.  Charles Copp in the NBN Standards  on which  Recorder 2000 was based introduced two concept  which are worth preserving in some way. Firstly that ever record should have a unique identifier which it takes with it wherever it goes, and secondly that each record should have a Custodian, with only the Custodian having the right to change the record. . 

Having a unique identifier which is not system based will achieve the first objective. 

The second objective is more difficult to achieve, because users like to change records they import, if for no other reason to than to fit the dictionaries and structures  of their system.   However, this isn’t a big issue as long as the altered record is not then  passed on to other systems.  One of the simplest  ideas I have seen to  overcome this is to have an ownership or custodianship token attached to each record.  The system which holds the token, can pass the record on, give consent for other to pass the record on,  and they can transfer the token. Systems not holding the token can use the record,  can modify it for their own use, but can not pass it on without the token holders permission, and even then only without the token.   The advantage of the token concept,  as with your GUID approach,  is that  it doesn’t require  the maintenance  of external  records and each system can implement it in any way they like. All that is required is a way of transferring the token in situations where this is required.

David, whatever the eventual aim, the reality is that data move around all over the place via many different channels and often pass through a number of different systems - some of which attach their own type of unique identifier in place of any the record came with. And the reality is that this causes data duplication on the NBN Gateway and many biological record information systems (e.g LRC databases). I don't think that we can afford to close our eyes to the problem and say it will all be okay once all biological records can only be accessed and used via the NBN Gateway. Even assuming that this is a desireable goal, by the time we reach that point, the problem of duplicate records would be huge.

Mike do you know of anything happening in the biodiversity informatics sector to advance these ideas?

Rich

Rich

Duplication is annoying and if there are some simple ways of identifying duplicates  I think they should be adopted. However, although true duplication is annoying it can, as you say,  be picked up. The biggest problem is where records are altered in some way, Usually this is done so that the data will fit into the format of the importing  system.  For example the species is changed, the grif reference altered in precision , a vague date is changed to something more specific, the recorder's or determiners' name is lost or interpreted,   or abundance  information interpreted in a different way. Without some reference  back to the source these look like new records and there is not much hope of identifying them as duplicates. This isn't a problem as long as the records are not then circulated as though they are new data.  For example if data is imported from the Gateway into a system for reporting purposes, it should not be distributed as though it it new data.  There is also a question of data ownership here. I would be extremely unhappy if any of the records I have submitted to the gateway (via LRC's) ended up there duplicated as new records, especially if they had been changed in some way.  If this were to happen too often you would find data providers reluctant to allow their data to be made generally available. which would not be in anyones interest.