Question about BioAPI specification
Aarti
I am doing some research into hooking up BioAPI-compliant devices and
software for authentication on Linux. I found useful resources on this
site including the BioAPI_PAM module and Linux-BioAPI framework.
However, I am having a hard time finding information on vendors who
sell devices and software (enrollment, verification) that is BioAPI
compliant and supported on Linux. Moreover, I am reading about and
hearing comments like the BioAPI standard is "old" (http://
74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:lUc8uDVS4swJ:www.mail-archive.com/debian-
bugs-...@lists.debian.org/msg152588.html+alternatives+to+BioAPI
+standard&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) citing alternatives like
ThinkFinger and LibfPrint.
I understand that the Linux-BioAPI framework is available to be
leveraged if someone wishes to write this biometrics enrolment or
verification software on their own to hook up to BioAPI compliant
devices/sensors .. is this a correct understanding?
However, I am not sure I understand why the BioAPI standard is cited
as being old given that the BioAPI consortium released the 2.0
standard just a couple of years ago and it is widely considered the
primary emerging standard in this space. Is there some industry
resistance to or issues with the standard? Also, I am not sure I
understand how/why tools like ThinkFinger and LibfPrint are
"alternatives" to BioAPI. Could not such tools be developed to expose
the standard BioAPI interface and why are they being thought of as
mutually exclusive? Are there practical issues with implementing the
BioAPI standard?
I would very much appreciate any insights and guidance on this
subject. Thanks!
Aarti
Dererk
> However, I am not sure I understand why the BioAPI standard is cited
> as being old given that the BioAPI consortium released the 2.0
> standard just a couple of years ago and it is widely considered the
> primary emerging standard in this space. Is there some industry
> resistance to or issues with the standard? Also, I am not sure I
> understand how/why tools like ThinkFinger and LibfPrint are
> "alternatives" to BioAPI. Could not such tools be developed to expose
> the standard BioAPI interface and why are they being thought of as
> mutually exclusive? Are there practical issues with implementing the
> BioAPI standard?
>
Let me quote the answer:
* BioAPI is closed. There does not seem to be any way to provide
input for API design, unless you are a member.
* BioAPI is not free. While a 6-year old version of the standard can
be freely downloaded, the latest version must be purchased.
* BioAPI adoption seems to be very low. I only know of a single
freely downloadable software product which uses BioAPI, and that
one is closed source: UPEKs own Linux fingerprint drivers.
* BioAPI is vague and complex. It turns out that designing API's to
drive biometric hardware in general is a hard problem, and I don't
really agree with their approach on things. Actually, I don't feel
that I have a complete understanding of it either, despite
spending a long time looking at it. Another reason for avoidance.
* BioAPI doesn't do as much as people think. For example it has no
image processing code, it just describes an API for how such code
might be driven.
More here http://www.reactivated.net/fprint/wiki/FAQ#Why_no_BioAPI.3F
I not only agreed with what this guy establishes, moreover, I think that
clouse-source development model is showing it's close end and giving
place to open designs, open sourced frameworks && code, where everyone,
not only the product industries, decides and plays a role for the best
of it.
Completely backwards with what actually happens in BioAPI Consortium
that, if you are not member, which means to be part of the industry
(manufactures one, not software unless you are one of those huge ones),
you are not allowed to make a noise.
Hope this helped you.
Greetings,
Dererk
--
BOFH excuse #356: the daemons! the daemons! the terrible daemons!.
Aarti
Thanks for the information and some perspective on the matter.
Meanwhile, I see a Linux_BioAPI and BioAPI_PAM implementation on this
site. The latter is for version 1.1. Is the Linux_BioAPI
implementation also for version 1.1? I was not certain how to get in
touch with the project owners. Thanks,
Aarti
> I not only agreed with what this guy establishes, moreover, I think that
> clouse-source development model is showing it's close end and giving
> place to open designs, open sourced frameworks && code, where everyone,
> not only the product industries, decides and plays a role for the best
> of it.
> Completely backwards with what actually happens in BioAPI Consortium
> that, if you are not member, which means to be part of the industry
> (manufactures one, not software unless you are one of those huge ones),
> you are not allowed to make a noise.
>
> Hope this helped you.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Dererk
>
> --
> BOFH excuse #356: the daemons! the daemons! the terrible daemons!.
>
> < 1KViewDownload