ISO15926-9(20121119) questions
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:10 pm
1. Section 4.4
- As it is stated above, "an ISO 15926 endpoint exposes ISO 15926-7 template instances and other instances of subtypes of thing in ISO 15926-8 form". It is worth to mention here not only identification as ISO 15926-2 ’id’ attribute of thing, but also identification as ISO 15926-8 rdf:about and rdf:ID.
- "All instances of thing which are part of the ISO 15926 Reference Data Library shall have a
URN."
Isn't this "URN" a mistake?
- "An instance of ClassOfIdentificationTemplate from the ISO 15926-7 proto templates list
shall be used to identify an ISO 15926-9 endpoint."
I've to confess that I don't understand how to identify an endpoint (file or service) in this manner. What URI should be used? What kind if identification is meant here? Human-readable? Section 4 above refers to Annex A ("Each ISO 15926 endpoint shall have a unique identifier. See also clause A."). But it is not really defined in annex A!
2. Section 4.10
"Question : is there a value in having an manifest owl class to list out the authentication
mechanism used by the particular ISO15926 service?"
I don't think so. If client can already access manifest - he had probable already cleared authentication. Any architecture which exposes authentication info before authentication is too specific and can not be normative.
3. Section 6
"Each Reference Data Service shall use metadata as defined in the ISO 15926-8 about RDL
entries and evolution of these entries."
Probable ISO 15926-6?
4. Annex A.
"uri of the ISO 15926 endpoint" is mentioned several times. But no explicit definition, as promised in Section 4. Is URI of a service defined as URL of an endpoint? What is URI of a file? Shouldn't it be declared explicitly?
"p9mm:valHashCode" What is the intended methodology? Hash value of a service is a hash value of a mandatory export file? Shouldn't this be stated explicitly?
One proposal. Please consider adding to the manifest an optional list of annotation properties used for exposed entities.
- As it is stated above, "an ISO 15926 endpoint exposes ISO 15926-7 template instances and other instances of subtypes of thing in ISO 15926-8 form". It is worth to mention here not only identification as ISO 15926-2 ’id’ attribute of thing, but also identification as ISO 15926-8 rdf:about and rdf:ID.
- "All instances of thing which are part of the ISO 15926 Reference Data Library shall have a
URN."
Isn't this "URN" a mistake?
- "An instance of ClassOfIdentificationTemplate from the ISO 15926-7 proto templates list
shall be used to identify an ISO 15926-9 endpoint."
I've to confess that I don't understand how to identify an endpoint (file or service) in this manner. What URI should be used? What kind if identification is meant here? Human-readable? Section 4 above refers to Annex A ("Each ISO 15926 endpoint shall have a unique identifier. See also clause A."). But it is not really defined in annex A!
2. Section 4.10
"Question : is there a value in having an manifest owl class to list out the authentication
mechanism used by the particular ISO15926 service?"
I don't think so. If client can already access manifest - he had probable already cleared authentication. Any architecture which exposes authentication info before authentication is too specific and can not be normative.
3. Section 6
"Each Reference Data Service shall use metadata as defined in the ISO 15926-8 about RDL
entries and evolution of these entries."
Probable ISO 15926-6?
4. Annex A.
"uri of the ISO 15926 endpoint" is mentioned several times. But no explicit definition, as promised in Section 4. Is URI of a service defined as URL of an endpoint? What is URI of a file? Shouldn't it be declared explicitly?
"p9mm:valHashCode" What is the intended methodology? Hash value of a service is a hash value of a mandatory export file? Shouldn't this be stated explicitly?
One proposal. Please consider adding to the manifest an optional list of annotation properties used for exposed entities.