[Data-modeling] RFCs that define a protocol

[robert at barclayfamily.com]

> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:37:18 -0400
> From: tfmorris at gmail.com


> Concerning RFCs, I'd like to see "Internet Protocol" get sorted out
> before "RFC" is tackled. There are a bunch of really good questions
> from September, 2007 here
> http://www.freebase.com/view/guid/9202a8c04000641f8000000005c8ec02 and
> I asked back in March that, at a minimum, the type include a
> description so people could tell what the heck it is
> http://www.freebase.com/type/schema/computer/internet_protocol
> 
> Is it only protocols that run over TCP? Only those defined by the
> IETF? Any protocol between two computers (including ISO, IEEE, ITU-T,
> etc)?
> 
> Depending on the answer to this question, perhaps we don't need an
> "RFC" type at all, but rather a "protocol specification/standard" or
> some other type.


In looking at the "Internet Protocol" type I have to agree here. At a minimum a description of what the Internet Protocol type is supposed to be should probably be a requirement before trying to tie an RFC type or any other standard type to it. 

 

My two cents would be that a type describing the actual underlying protocols used on the Internet would be very useful and would make for a great underpinning to understanding a lot of software (e.g. Microsoft Outlook uses protocols (IMAP, POP, SMTP, etc...), SMTP is specified by RFC 2821). 

 

Some of the things currently in that type could more logically be grouped into something like "Computerized data encapsulation (or representation) formats" which would include things like HTML, CSV, XML, JSON, etc...

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_more_042009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/data-modeling/attachments/20090428/4ca65c10/attachment.htm