Standard overlay confusion

[blelump]

Problem overview

When we think of a standard, there are many viable options. There are ISO standards, IETF standards, W3C standards, etc. Furthermore, IETF standards, for example, did not pass a formal review process in many cases, even though they are broadly used in the industry.

A standard brings a narrow specialization for a domain-oriented problem and offers a solution. In the OCA ecosystem, the standard is additional metadata that currently does not add any value to the ecosystem except the ability to define it as pure metadata. The primary implementation does not benefit from it. It is, therefore, a burden we need to carry for reasons that need to be clarified.

Specifying a standard and, for example, imposing the behavior upon the standard is impossible due to the amount of existing standards. The vague concept of this overlay and its lack of applicability suggest the DSWG consider either redefining its meaning and purpose or removing it entirely.

[carlyh-micb]

Recommend that standard overlay be removed and functionality replaced with the more accessible and descriptive entry_framing overlay.

Similar to other framing overlays (see RFC 004 https://github.com/the-human-colossus-foundation/oca-spec/blob/master/RFCs/0004-framingOverlay.md):

{
  "capture_base": "Etszl9LgLUjllI950rd2lO6rF5-BP_jGzXGBPkFZCZFA",
  "digest": "XXXX",
  "type": "spec/overlays/entry_framing/1.0",
  "entry_framing": {
    "chemical": {
      "frame_id": "https://doi.org/10.1515/iupac",
      "frame_label": "IUPAC nomenclature",
      "frame_location": "https://iupac.org/what-we-do/nomenclature/",
      "frame_version": ""
    }
  }
}

There can be different frames for attributes (0 or more) in a schema.

Note IUPAC nomenclature contains the rules for writing chemical formulas and there are an infinite number of combinations that could be created and thus it is impossible to write this as a list of entry codes.

[carlyh-micb]

I don't think this belongs as entry_framing but should continue to be standard.

{
  "capture_base": "Etszl9LgLUjllI950rd2lO6rF5-BP_jGzXGBPkFZCZFA",
  "digest": "XXXX",
  "type": "spec/overlays/entry_standard/1.0",
  "entry_standard": {
    "chemical": {
      "standard_id": "https://doi.org/10.1515/iupac",
      "standard_label": "IUPAC nomenclature",
      "standard_location": "https://iupac.org/what-we-do/nomenclature/",
      "standard_version": ""
    }
  }
}

[carlyh-micb]

DSWG has started an RFC to change this standard and update it. We absolutely want it to remain in the specification so that we don't overload other overlays with information that can be more easily sorted into overlays such as the standard overlay.

https://github.com/the-human-colossus-foundation/oca-spec/blob/RFC-006-standard/RFCs/0006-Standard_overlay_changes.md

[carlyh-micb]

I've completed the RFC with Paul and I think I have put in a request to merge into master but I might be wrong - still learning GitHub. If I did it wrong please help me do it right the next time. Thank you!