W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Request for two new media types submitted

From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:54:23 +0000
Message-ID: <493D432F.4070908@philarcher.org>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr>

Thanks Eric, your and everyone's input is very welcome - we want to get 
this right.

I included a lot of folk, but not everyone here, on a renewed request to 
  the IETF a little while ago 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Dec/0033.html). 
I'm hoping that's got all the right things in the right place. I've also 
followed up on the discussion with IANA about rel="describedby" 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Dec/0034.html) 
which highlights to them that a) the @rel type registration is now in 
the normative doc and b) that consensus around it has been reached (cue 
massive calls of "I never said I agreed to that!!")

I've requested application/powder+xml and application/powder-s+xml.

Stasinos - you have control of the formal doc just now - please see 
Eric's comment below.

Soon be Christmas...

Phil.

Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> Cc- ietf-types@iana.org while we work out what to ask for.
> I kept Bjoern in the look 'cause he might be interested.
> I've also added Ralph as he and I had a long POWDER-S media type discussion.
> 
> * Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org> [2008-12-03 10:49+0000]
>> As for POWDER-S, the problem is the Semantic Extension  
>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-formal-20081114/#SE). Yes, a  
>> POWDER-S document is a valid OWL ontology - but it's pretty meaningless  
>> unless you implement the extension that allows a resource to be an  
>> instance of a class based on matching its IRI against one or more  
>> regular expressions. Hence the request for a Media type that is specific  
>> to POWDER-S.
>>
>> Logically, we'd probably go for application/powder-s+rdf+xml or maybe  
>> application/pdrs+rdf+xml but that's getting a bit unwieldy (can you have  
>> x+y+xml??). And if we were to suggest a new file extension then it would  
>> probably be pdrs if that's available.
> 
> I think this argument calls for the creation of a media type for every
> (non-XSD) DatatypeProperty, which leads to trouble when mixing them in
> the same document. I, and I think the world, would be more motivated
> by a protocol need for a media type for POWDER-S than by requirements
> on the application interpreting the OWLRDF. For the latter, rdf+xml
> struck Ralph and myself as sufficient and consistent with the expected
> use of RDF and OWL.
> 
> 
> Minor nit:
> [[
>   We extend RDF with the datatype properties ...
> ]]  http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-formal-20081114/#SE
> 
> would imply to me that the RDF machinery must be extended, as opposed
> to the application interpreting the RDF graph. Maybe something like:
> "POWDER-S uses an <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/syntax.html#owl_DatatypeProperty_syntax">OWL DatatypeProperty</a> to relate a resource to a regular expression which that resource matches. While POWDER-S uses OWL classes to group resources, any engine determining if a resource belonged in one of these OWL classes would need to be able to test a resource against a regular expression."
> 
> 
> Keep going, brave soldier; some day we'll stop harassing you.
> 
>> Thanks
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>>
>> Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>> * Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> [2008-12-02 18:36+0100]
>>>> * Phil Archer wrote:
>>>>> On behalf of the W3C POWDER Working Group I have have today 
>>>>> submitted two registration requests for Media Types. As cited in 
>>>>> those requests, the key documentation is section 4 of Protocol for 
>>>>> Web Description Resources (POWDER): Description Resources [1]. 
>>>>> Although this is formally published as a working draft, we are 
>>>>> close to reaching our Candidate Recommendation exit criteria and 
>>>>> therefore expect to seek transition to Proposed Recommendation 
>>>>> later this month.
>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc
>>>> As per RFC 4288
>>>>
>>>>    As stated previously, standards tree registrations for media types
>>>>    defined in documents produced by other standards bodies MUST be
>>>>    described by a formal standards specification produced by that body.
>>>>    Such specifications MUST contain an appropriate media type
>>>>    registration template taken from Section 10.
>>>>
>>>> I could not find such a template in the document. Also, given that
>>>> some http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-media-types in the W3C think
>>>>
>>>>   In general, a representation provider SHOULD NOT assign Internet
>>>>   media types beginning with "text/" to XML representations.
>>>>
>>>> A registration request for text/powder+xml from the W3C should not
>>>> come without some form of justification for this choice.
>>> Phil, meet Bjoern. Bjoern is lint for W3C and IETF specs.
>>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lint_programming_tool
>>>
>>> I propose that POWDER register application/powder+xml for POWDER, and
>>> use application/rdf+xml for POWDER-S.
>>>   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3870.txt
>>>
>>> I think it's handy to include the media type registration in the spec,
>>>  al http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#mediaType .
>>>
>>> Following http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype , and
>>> assuming you have no preference above being good netizens, I have
>>> created a template for both (powder+xml and powder-s+xml) with
>>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-media-types
>>> trumping
>>>   http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt
>>> , i.e. using application/ instead of text/:
>>>
>>> [[
>>> Type name:
>>>   application
>>>
>>> Subtype name:
>>>   powder+xml
>>>
>>> Required parameters:
>>>   None
>>>
>>> Optional parameters:
>>>   "charset": This parameter has identical semantics to the charset
>>>              parameter of the "application/xml" media type as
>>>              specified in [RFC3023], section 3.2.
>>>
>>> Encoding considerations:
>>>   Identical to those of "application/xml" as specified in [RFC3023],
>>>   section 3.2.
>>>
>>> Security considerations:
>>>
>>>   POWDER is used to make assertions, sometimes socially sensitive,
>>>   about web resources. Consumers of POWDER should be aware of the
>>>   source and chain of custody of this data. Security considerations
>>>   for URIs (Section 7 of [RFC3986]) and IRIs (Section 8 of [RFC3987])
>>>   apply to the extent that describing resources in POWDER may prompt
>>>   consumers to retrieve those resources.
>>>
>>> Interoperability considerations:
>>>   There are no known interoperability issues.
>>>
>>> Published specification:
>>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/
>>>
>>> Applications which use this media type:
>>>   No known applications currently use this media type.
>>>
>>> Additional information:
>>>
>>> Magic number(s):
>>>   As specified for "application/xml" in [RFC3023], section 3.2.
>>>
>>> File extension(s):
>>>   ".srx"
>>>
>>> Fragment identifiers:
>>>   Identical to that of "application/xml" as described in RFC 3023
>>>   [RFC3023], section 5.
>>>
>>> Base URI:
>>>   As specified in [RFC3023], section 6.
>>>
>>> Macintosh file type code(s):
>>>   "TEXT"
>>>
>>> Person & email address to contact for further information:
>>>   Phil Archer <public-powderwg@w3.org>
>>>
>>> Intended usage:
>>>   COMMON
>>>
>>> Restrictions on usage:
>>>   None
>>>
>>> Author/Change controller:
>>>   The POWDER specification is a work product of the World Wide Web
>>>   Consortium's Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER) Working
>>>   Group. The W3C has change control over these specifications.
>>>
>>> References
>>>
>>> [RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types",
>>>           RFC 3023, January 2001.
>>>
>>> [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
>>>           Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
>>>           3986, January 2005.
>>>
>>> [RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
>>>           Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.
>>> ]]
>>>
>>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Phil Archer
>> w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Monday, 8 December 2008 15:55:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:13 GMT