Bob,

These are really good points. Thanks for bringing them up!

I've created a new workgroup task on our wiki at http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=LSIDConformanceTesting. I tried to summarize your comments there. Please take a look and feel free change the wording if you'd like.

I would like to comment on one of the issues you brought up:

The only specific a priori concern about built in assumptions that comes to mind is the one that pervaded early TDWG LSID discussion, namely, that LSID Resolution Services might be conflated with LSID Resolution Discovery Services and that the former might get DNS notions inappropriately ingrained in them merely because such notions are ingrained in the only currentlResolution Discovery Service scheme ever mentioned by anybody, the DDDS/DNS scheme of Section 8.3 of the LSID spec. [In particular, a resolution client like Launchpad which is standalone must, ipso facto, have some Resolution Discovery Service imbedded in it].

As in any enterprise, it's a little likely that the cultural norms of TDWG membership will also creep in, but it is very difficult to characterize that in ways that would inform conformance software. Operative words are likely to include "systematist", "taxonomist", "museum", and "kingdom".(*) To me, this means---ultimately---having a clear separation between tests of \intended/ special things about TDWG blessed LSID resolvers and tests of things that are identified as about all LSIDs, in case one can find such things. This all augurs for tools that are at least in part meaningful when applied against resolution services that have nothing to do with TDWG.

It is likely that we will end up creating a number of additional requirements for use of LSIDs in our community. That's actually the goal of the infrastructure working group. If you look at their wiki page (http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/wikka.php?wakka=InfrastructureWorkingGroup) you will know what I mean. Some of these new requirements will sure have an impact on conformance testing.

It would probably be nice to check server conformance to these additional requirements besides testing strict standard conformance. In any case, these assumptions should be clearly stated and separated, and the test tool should be modular enough to accomodate that.

Regards,

Ricardo