| 69 | | Object Identifiers: One of the stated key advantages of RDF is that objects are identified once and then reused. In the work done to date, I don't see how converting a record to RDF will identify the individual objects for reuse eg. if a piece of contact info is present in two different metadata records, then how is that object uniquely identified? Perhaps the object identifier could be derived from an md5sum on the content of the object? |
| | 69 | ==== XML2RDF ==== |
| | 70 | |
| | 71 | Object Identifiers: One of the stated key advantages of RDF is that objects are identified once and then reused. In the work done to date, I can see that Responsible Parties are assigned identifiers based on the name of the responsible person . Presumably the RDF store would refuse to ingest the same responsible party if it was repeated in another record. But there are a few problems with this approach: |
| | 72 | - Name of responsible party may not be present (it's optional) or may be hidden |
| | 73 | - The RDF URI is hardcoded to use a CSIRO URL - probably should be GeoNetwork or some other URL |
| | 74 | Perhaps the object identifier could be derived from an md5sum on the content of the object or it may use the XLink URL if the fragment being processed is XLinked. |
| | 75 | |
| | 76 | Doesn't support XLinked records? |
| | 77 | |
| | 78 | Patch uses Apache JENA RDF store but GeoNetwork already uses the OpenRDF-Sesame RDF store for its SKOS vocabularies - would be better to use one of these RDF stores, not both? |
| | 79 | |
| | 80 | When storing metadata records in the database table, they are allocated an integer ID in DataManager. I need to check that the DataManagerRDF code continues this practice otherwise the permissions system and other parts of GeoNetwork will not be able to manage the record properly. |
| | 81 | |
| | 82 | ==== Implications for wider adoption of RDF Store and Encoding in GeoNetwork ==== |
