Hi Paul, Paul Millar wrote:
In a round-about way, I (re)discovered a project a friend mentioned a while ago, called "Grimoires": http://twiki.grimoires.org/bin/view/Grimoires/
If you're not familiar with the project, it's basically registry that allows for service discovery, based on UDDI but allowing RDF (i.e., "semantic") annotations by multiple user communities. This should allow different end-user communities to annotate a service in almost any way supported by RDF.
Re-reading the page, I was struck by what Stephen said earlier about allowing user-communities to annotate GLUE information.
The interesting part comes if all GLUE entities were cast as either a UDDI-registered service or as an annotation of a service. It should be relatively easy for someone with some spare time hands (i.e., not me :) to map GLUE vocab. into RDF and allow GLUE-like publishing of information into a Grimoires server. This would allow end-users to ask some nice queries, combining their "personal" metadata with GLUE information.
There's another RDF project that hook into GT4: S-MDS. IIRC, S-MDS maps the MDS information into a SPARQL end-point via some (fairly static) mapping rules. I suspect it could be persuaded to ingest GLUE (in-band via MDS or out-of-band), but 3rd-party annotations would have to be out-of-band (unless they have write-access to MDS). Whereas the Grimoires project seems to be a more integrated approach.
Should we make contact with these people to see if they're interested in adopting GLUE as a case-study? It might prove useful if we provide an RDF binding for GLUE.
The early drafts of glue2 contained a statement that we wanted to provide RDF binding as well. That sentence has been removed since we had no time to pursue that directions. But i think we should come back to this idea once we have a matured specification and yes, the RDF/Grimoires people should also be contacted. cheers, Balazs