BBF RFC 30: Difference between revisions
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
'''5.2''' | '''5.2''' | ||
"Whenever appropriate, extension authors SHOULD re-use definitions | "Whenever appropriate, extension authors SHOULD re-use definitions | ||
from well supported other RDF ontologies" | from well supported other RDF ontologies" | ||
| Line 21: | Line 22: | ||
'''5.3''' | '''5.3''' | ||
"In any case, a owl:sameAs link SHOULD connect the new standard back | "In any case, a owl:sameAs link SHOULD connect the new standard back | ||
to the RDF document of the original proposal." | to the RDF document of the original proposal." | ||
| Line 36: | Line 38: | ||
issue though... for data *and* for schemata. | issue though... for data *and* for schemata. | ||
5.4 | '''5.4''' | ||
"The data documents SHOULD be serialized to XML but, depending on the | "The data documents SHOULD be serialized to XML but, depending on the | ||
situation, other formats, like Turtle/N3 or JSON MAY be preferred." | situation, other formats, like Turtle/N3 or JSON MAY be preferred." | ||
| Line 45: | Line 48: | ||
serialization." | serialization." | ||
5.6 | '''5.6''' | ||
"That means a simple HTTP GET MUST serve the document just as it would | "That means a simple HTTP GET MUST serve the document just as it would | ||
| Line 61: | Line 64: | ||
should be served in a way everyone can use it. | should be served in a way everyone can use it. | ||
5.6 | '''5.6''' | ||
"Software that consumes Synthetic Biology data records MUST be able to | "Software that consumes Synthetic Biology data records MUST be able to | ||
| Line 69: | Line 72: | ||
This is a little confusing: | This is a little confusing: | ||
1. MUST parse RDF (at least one serialization) | 1. MUST parse RDF (at least one serialization) | ||
a. SHOULD parse XML-RDF | a. SHOULD parse XML-RDF | ||
b. RECOMMENDED Turtle / N3 | b. RECOMMENDED Turtle / N3 | ||
According to RFC 0 'The word "SHOULD" or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" | According to RFC 0 'The word "SHOULD" or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" | ||
mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to | mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to | ||
| Line 83: | Line 88: | ||
Another solution, change to say: MAY support Turtle/N3 | Another solution, change to say: MAY support Turtle/N3 | ||
5.6 | '''5.6''' | ||
"At least in the long term, data stores are also RECOMMENDED to | "At least in the long term, data stores are also RECOMMENDED to | ||
support the SPARQL W3C standard for more complex queries." | support the SPARQL W3C standard for more complex queries." | ||
| Line 93: | Line 99: | ||
initialization of web services" | initialization of web services" | ||
6.1 | '''6.1''' | ||
"Soap" | "Soap" | ||
Change to | Change to | ||
Revision as of 05:45, 25 April 2009
Add your comments to RFC 30 here. See BBF_RFC_20 for an example how comments can be formatted and signed.
Michal Galdzicki, 24/04/09
Raik, This RFC is really helpful. I appreciate the direction it gives for definitions of data formats and your support of RDF/OWL for this purpose. Below I detail some nit-picky comments that came up while reading. I have also included a paragraph which fits as a conclusion. I will consider RFC30 while drafting RFC 31, and that may result in some more comments.
5.2
"Whenever appropriate, extension authors SHOULD re-use definitions from well supported other RDF ontologies"
Consider : "Whenever appropriate, extension authors SHOULD re-use definitions from well established RDF/OWL ontologies, as they constitute standards for other domains science."
5.3
"In any case, a owl:sameAs link SHOULD connect the new standard back to the RDF document of the original proposal."
Consider that owl:sameAs will be interpreted to mean sameAs reciprocally.
Consider another versioning scheme, self defined (active research area I believe)
*Raik 08:42, 25 April 2009 (EDT): I was assuming the BBF would accept the new ontology without changes but may prefer to have the elements defined in the BBF name space (which makes life easier for everyone). I guess, in this case owl:sameAs would be ok because the two copies really are mutually the same. Versioning is indeed a whole different issue though... for data *and* for schemata.
5.4
"The data documents SHOULD be serialized to XML but, depending on the situation, other formats, like Turtle/N3 or JSON MAY be preferred."
Consider adding: " If another serialization is used the format chosen MUST NOT lose or leave out information in the conversion from the original XML serialization."
5.6
"That means a simple HTTP GET MUST serve the document just as it would serve an html formatted web page about it. That also means data access SHALL NOT require the initialization of web services or any other kind of remote procedure calls."
Potentially a technical contradiction
HTTP GET may be technically considered a web service it self. "SHALL NOT require" phrase lacks recommended actions that I should take when interpreting the RFC document. Personally, I agree with the sentiment that I think you are expressing; as a first choice data should be served in a way everyone can use it.
5.6
"Software that consumes Synthetic Biology data records MUST be able to open, parse and interpret RDF documents. The software SHOULD, at least, parse XML-formatted RDF documents. Support of more specialised and readable formats like turtle/N3 is RECOMMENDED."
This is a little confusing:
1. MUST parse RDF (at least one serialization) a. SHOULD parse XML-RDF b. RECOMMENDED Turtle / N3
According to RFC 0 'The word "SHOULD" or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and care-fully weighed before choosing a different course.' Therefore a = b in objective terms therefore you are not recommending one over the other.
One solution, change to: MUST parse RDF-XML
Another solution, change to say: MAY support Turtle/N3
5.6
"At least in the long term, data stores are also RECOMMENDED to support the SPARQL W3C standard for more complex queries."
SPARQL endpoints are web services, as far as I understand. http://semanticweb.org/wiki/SPARQL_endpoint
Refers back to confusion that may arise from "SHALL NOT require the initialization of web services"
6.1
"Soap" Change to SOAP
*Raik 08:43, 25 April 2009 (EDT):
Thanks a lot for the comments! Looks like I was a bit too quick in pushing this out. I suggest we collect some more and then write a joint RFC that replaces RFC 30.
