Interesting choice using LSIDs. My first reaction was, "CF should allow more flexibility when specifying the identifier and classification system, without forcing the user to use the LSID specification." There's also apparently some [controversy over LSIDs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSID#Controversy_over_the_use_of_LSIDs), and I don't now how stable the specification is. But, the systems I typically use (WoRMS and ITIS) can be expressed with LSIDs, and I see merit in sticking with a particular convention for compatibility's sake. So at this point I'm not suggesting a change...I'm just curious to see how it works out in practice.
FYI, my perspective is biased by [EML's recent adoption of a way of expressing taxon IDs](https://eml.ecoinformatics.org/whats-new-in-eml-2-2-0.html#support-for-ids-in-taxonomicclassification), as I've been working with EML files lately. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/218#issuecomment-560490301 This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from [email protected], although if you do nothing, a subscription to the UCAR list will result in a subscription to this list. To unsubscribe from this list only, send a message to [email protected].
