Re: [media-types] request for comments on media types section of PROV-XML

On Feb 25, 2013, at 7:31 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Stephan Zednik wrote:
>> link to media type section in editors draft of specification:  
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/xml/prov-xml.html#media-type
>> 
>> Type name:
>> application
>> 
>> Subtype name:
>> provenance+xml
>> 
>> Required parameters:
>> none
>> 
>> Optional parameters:
>> charset - this parameter may be required when transferring non-ASCII data across some protocols.
> 
> This should use language as provided in RFC 3023 section 7.1.

Here, and a few areas below such as with "Base URI" I was following the example OWL XML.

from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-xml-serialization/#Appendix:_Internet_Media_Type.2C_File_Extension.2C_and_Macintosh_File_Type

Should it be:

"Same as charset parameter of application/xml as specified in RFC 3023 (Section 3.2)."


> 
>> Encoding considerations:
>> The syntax of PROV-XML is expressed over code points in Unicode [[!UNICODE]]
> 
> As above.

Should it be:

"Same as encoding considerations of application/xml as specified in RFC 3023 (Section 3.2)."

> 
>> Security considerations:
>> [...]
> 
> There are formatting problems here (like use of entity references).

Is the use of entity references here bad?  Or is there something wrong with them?

Is the content ok?

> 
>> Published specification:
>> PROV-XML: The PROV XML Schema, Hua, Tilmes, Zednik (eds), Moreau <a 
>> href="http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-xml/">http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-xml/</a>, 
>> 2012.
> 
> I believe this is still (after the RFC4288 revision) supposed to
> reference a specification that actually includes the template, and
> the published draft does not include it.

Could you rephrase?  or better yet, provide insight on what should go here.

> 
>> Additional Information:
>> 
>> 	Magic number(s):
>> 	PROV-XML documents are XML documents and thus may have initial strings similar to any XML document.
>> 
>> 	File extension(s):
>> 	.provx
>> 
>> 	Base URI:
>> 	As in XML.
> 
> I don't understand what that means; I suggest removing this field.

I assume you mean "Base URI" and not all of "Additional Information"?

Here I was following the example from the OWL XML.

Base URI is mentioned in RFC 3023 Section 7.1

"These registrations SHOULD also make reference to RFC 3023 in specifying magic numbers, fragment identifiers, base URIs, and use of the BOM."

> 
>> Author/Change controller:
>> The PROV-XML specification is the product of the World Wide Web 
>> Consortium's Provenance Working Group. The W3C has change control over 
>> this specification.
> 
> Per http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838#section-5.6 you should put that
> into two separate fields.

Author:
The PROV-XML specification is the product of the World Wide Web Consortium's Provenance Working Group.
Change controller:
The W3C has change control over this specification.


> I also note that you don't have any Fragment
> Identifier Considerations.

I don't have any beyond what is in RFC 3023 Section 5.

Should I put "none" or "Same as RFC 3023 (Section 5.)."?

--Stephan

> -- 
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
> 
>