Aaron,
Following some informal discussion in the RDFcore working group, I'm
sending these as personal review comments to you, and to the MIME types
review list...
Concerning:
[1]
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-0…
Broadly, I think this looks fine, but the RDFcore working group has made a
number of changes to the RDF specifications in response to last call
comments since the above MIME type registration draft was issued. The
following comments would, in my view, help to bring the proposed MIME type
registration more closely in line with the current RDF specification status.
Section 2, 3:
The citation for the RDF data model is to the RDF Semantics document
[2]: the definition of the abstract syntax has now been moved to the RDF
Concepts [3], and I think that would now be a more helpful citation.
Section 3:
Would it be appropriate to cite the RDF Semantics in the interoperability
considerations section? E.g.
[[
RDF is intended to allow common information to be exchanged between
disparate applications. A basis for building common understanding is
provided by a formal semantics [2?], and applications that use RDF should
do so in ways that are consistent with this.
]]
Section 4:
In response to last-call feedback, we decided to pull the "social context"
material from Concepts. I think that it would be appropriate to also pull
it from the MIME type registration; i.e. remove all of section 4.
Section 5:
Would it be appropriate to cite RDF Concepts here? cf:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-frag…
Regards,
#g
--
[1]
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-0…
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/
(current editor's working draft)
[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/
(current editors' working draft)
At 10:23 24/07/03 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>I'm soliciting comments on the media type registration draft for
>RDF/XML:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-
>mediatype-02.txt
>http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype -02.html
>
>As required by section 2.3.1 of RFC 2048, I've sent it for review to
>ietf-types and ietf-xml-mime. Dan Connolly says the document has
>undergone sufficient W3C review because it is [referenced from the
>syntax draft]. However, I'm happy to take any comments from the WG or
>other W3Cers/RDFers at the same time. Do folks think sending a note to
>www-rdf-interest or something would be in order?
>
>[ref]
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-MIME- Type
>
>I plan to fold in all the comments I receive and release a new version
>in two weeks. (After that, I need to ask the IESG if they want to do
>their own Last Call, wait for RDF to go to Recommendation, update the
>draft to refer to the Recommendation, and then submit it to be
>published as an RFC.)
>
>--
>Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK(a)NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Phaser Scientific Software, LLC (www.phaser.com) proposes the creation of
two new MIME type classifications for proprietary "document" files used by
the Phaser program.
The MIME types proposed are:
application/vnd.phaser.gallery
application/vnd.phaser.project
We are attempting to comply with the procedures for MIME type registration
outlined in rfc1590. If there is more to be done, please let us know.
We appreciate your feedback.
Best regards,
Dr. Brian Coomes
Department of Mathematics
University of Miami
Coral Gables, Florida 33124
(305) 284-6987
coomes(a)math.miami.edu
In accordance with section 2.3.1 of RFC 2048, I'd like your comments
and feedback on our draft registration of a media type for the W3C's
RDF/XML format. The Internet-Draft is at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-
mediatype-02.txt
or, more permanently,
http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype
-02.html (or .txt or .xml)
RFC 2048 recommends comments "on the choice of type/subtype name, the
unambiguity of the references with respect to versions and external
profiling information, and a review of any interoperability or security
considerations."
I'll respond to feedback for two weeks and on August 8th I'll release
an updated Internet-Draft folding in all the changes.
Thanks,
--
Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/ww
Hi,
I work on SBML (Systems Biology Markup Language) at Caltech. We
are thinking of proposing a new XML MIME media type.
When learning about the process for getting a new IETF-tree media
type approved, I was strongly advised to consult the members of
the ietf-types and ietf-xml-mime discussion lists for advice
before diving in. So here I am. I'll appreciate any advice you
can give me, especially any that saves us from making some stupid
mistakes that the biological modeling community will regret for
years to come. Please forgive me if I reveal my ignorance in
some questions below.
First, a little background. SBML is an XML format for
representing systems of biochemical reactions. Making it a MIME
media type would enable browser-based simulation tools to
conveniently download, run, and edit models. Work is now
beginning on a web infrastructure to make it easy for biological
researchers to share models on the web, download models used in
published papers, etc.
Two "levels" of SBML have been defined so far. Specifications,
including the XML schemas, are at:
http://www.sbw-sbml.org/sbml/docs/papers/sbml-level-1-version-2/sbml-level-…http://www.sbw-sbml.org/sbml/docs/papers/sbml-level-2-version-1/sbml-level-…
We are thinking that the ideal name would be either:
application/sbml+xml
or:
model/sbml+xml
Now, here are a few questions.
1. Would it be a bad idea if we used RFC3236 (The
application/xhtml+xml Media Type) as a model for the document w
write? I'm hoping that we don't need to explain the full
semantics of SBML in the RFC, since there are already some
weighty papers that do that (referenced above). At only 8 pages,
RFC3236 seems like a model of simplicity and clarity that we
would like to emulate. Or is it possible to get even simpler?
Some of the docs I found for XML MIME media types seemed to do
little more than list the name of the type and who submitted it.
2. We are thinking of including required parameters of "level"
and "version". Anything to watch out for here? Is this a wrong
idea? SBML has multiple levels to enable different simulation
tools to interoperate at different levels of complexity and
sophistication. Each level can come in different versions. More
levels are planned.
3. Is it completely stupid to even consider model/sbml+xml? The
other model/ media types have been for spatial models. SBML is
primarily used for spatial models of reactions that occur within
biological cells, and has some notions of spatial relation, but
an SBML model does not necessarily have the minimum 3 orthogonal
dimensions specified in RFC2077. We're wondering if SBML is
still within the spirit of the model/ top-level content type,
though. RFC2077 speaks of economic models, behavioral models,
and so on, and seems to encourage a situation where modeling
tools might work successfully on models from radically different
domains.
4. Any other advice you'd care to offer?
Thanks in advance for your assistance,
Ben
--
Ben Kovitz
Systems Biology Workbench (SBW) Development Group, Caltech
http://www.sbw-sbml.org
bkovitz at caltech.edu
