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.ht... http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0602&L=TDWG-GUID&P=R... http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0602&L=TDWG-GUID&P=R...
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