Discussions on Internet
Start a New Discussion
-
-
There is a type in the Computer commons called Internet Protocol which has no properties but duplicates the intent of the Protocol type in the Internet Commons, which *does* have at least one property (API), and has others under discussion (RFC).
Can we get rid of the one in Computers?
-
There was an earlier discussion of RFCs and Protocols on the data modeling list that I was supposed to follow up on with the with the following email:
=====
Thanks to both Robert and Tom for the very in-depth answers. The confusion over the /computer/internet_protocol type is well deserved. I just discovered another type, /internet/protocol, which has a description and is also connected to the /internet/api type, which uses it to describe methods of accessing a certain API.
Based on all the feedpack, the changes I'm proposing regarding protocols are:
1. Obsolete /computer/internet_protocol type
2. Clean up /internet/protocol to only include the IP suite of protocols; most bad instances should be /computer/file_formats
The revised changes and additions regarding specifications/standards are:
1. Create a Standard type
2. Create an RFC or IETF Standard type (and any others, like ISO Standard, IEEE Standard) that includes Standard
3. Create a Standardized Object(?) type to place on any topic standardized by a Standard
This way internet protocols will link to their RFCs via a property on the Standardized Object type. I will also add all the properties Robert and Jeff suggested to the IETF Standard type:
- Obsoleted(Superceded?) by and its reciprocal, Supercedes
- Updated by and its reciprocal, Updates
- Authors
- Working Group
- Standard number
> - Status (informational|experimental|...)
> - Date published (/type/datetime)
> - Specifies protocol (internet protocol)
The title will be captured in /type/object/name. None of the properties that link to other RFCs need to be unique, from what Robert has said. As for RFC ids as keys, we can figure this out later. I believe URI Templates only work with keys, so that will be an interesting issue later on.
(possibly replace any occurrence of "Standard" above with "Specification")
=====In short, I'm in favour of deleting the Internet Protocol type from Computers.
-
I agree that /computer/internet_protocol overlaps /internet/protocol, but I'm unclear on where non-IP protocols live in the proposed scheme. This includes things like all the IEEE 802.* LAN protocols, OSI protocols, ITU-T protocols (X.400, T.* protocols for fax, teletext, etc) -- basically everything in this table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model#Examples which is in a column other than "IP suite."
The current /computer/internet_protocol type includes an even wider variety of stuff like graphics terminal protocols (VT100), dialup transfer protocols (XMODEM), etc.
-
Looking at theSoftware type it appears that a more generic use of Protocol could instead be used to capture those that are not necessarily Internet Protocols (those maintained by standards bodies and used in relaying devices, both hardware and software driven) as is mentioned above from others.
My use case for this is the Xboard Communication Protocol which is used in several chess programs and chess engines such as Crafty
So, can we get the above proposal from Vishal documented at least here: http://wiki.freebase.com/wiki/Internet_commons and been to gather comments on the mailing list and REALLY finally make some progress on all this ?
Comments for me to add to above proposal, so I don't lose them: My thoughts are that we have /software/protocol and /software/library. Further, an additional property like /software/apis_provided(_if_any)
-
-
-
For example, for Ashton Kutcher, it would be great to store the username and URI template for:
http://www.facebook.com/Ashton
-
-
-
Both Yahoo and Bing have merged together. They both share common search algorithm but offering paid marketing services.
-
A more accurate statement might be that Yahoo search is now powered by Bing (Microsoft's search). The companies haven't merged.
Having said that Freebase is really a place for structured data, not freeform discussions. I don't think we have a schema to show which search sites are powered by what search engines.
-
-
-
I think it would be nice if a "subjects" property were added to this type so we specify what a website is about: for example, World of Spectrum is about the ZX Spectrum, while Connie Marshall Society is about Connie Marshall. This should maybe just be delegated from /common/topic/subject, depending on the status of that property.
-
Seems like a reasonable idea. It looks like a lot of users have been using the Web Site Category type for this purpose, which isn't really the same thing. We're going to do a bit of refactoring with subjects in the near future, as soon as the client is ready to support it, so I might hold off making this change until then. DA-1015
-
-
-
Although the domain is called Internet, it seems to focus exclusively on web sites. Where do things like newsgroups or FTP sites go? Actually, it would be useful to be able to treat non-Internet related computer communications genres like bulletin boards systems (BBS), emails systems which aren't Internet based, etc
-
-
-
Are the protocols here intended to be restricted to Internet protocols (ie those that have associated RFCs) or is any type of communications protocol fair game? An example of a non-RFC protocol at the same level as many of the Internet protocols is ITU-T's X.400, but then you can go further afield with the Ethernet protocols or storage protocols (SSA, iSCSI).
Same question for APIs
-
-
