LSID Software Gap Analysis

[Ricardo Scachetti Pereira]

    Kevin,

    That is an excellent point, thanks for bringing it up!!

    Yes, I believe we should include RDF into the analysis. We just need
to be careful about the wording, I guess.

    We clearly don't want to perform a gap analysis of all the existing
RDF software. That would be too big of a task for the GUID group.

    In my opinion, we should evaluate:
1) How well the current LSID server software supports the generation of
metadata responses in RDF; and
2) What capabilities the LSID client provides for ingestion of RDF.

    Besides that, we can also try to compile a list of RDF toolkits and
try to get evaluations of them, without performing a complete gap
analysis. Some people was asking for links about RDF tools on the
TDWG-TAG mailing list and on the GUID list as well. Take a look:

http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag_lists.tdwg.org/2006-March/000063.html
http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0602&L=TDWG-GUID&P=R6382
http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0602&L=TDWG-GUID&P=R6104

    So when you mention that it has been difficult to generate RDF, are
you talking about the Java toolkit that you used to set up Index
Fungorum LSID resolver or are you refering to the port of the client and
server stacks to .NET?

    Cheers,

Ricardo




Kevin Richards wrote:

> Ricardo
>
> Do you think this analysis should include a gap analysis of RDF
> software as well , or would it be best to keep this separate?
> I think this is probably a more contentious issue - ie some doubts
> about RDF over XML.  I have found setting up an LSID
> resolver/authority reasonably straight forward but trying to implement
> the services using RDF has been a steep learning curve (and limited
> software/tools to help).
> I'll add more later.
>
> Kevin
>