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

Re: Re: Request for two new media types submitted

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:20:29 -0500
To: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.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>
Message-ID: <20081208202028.GD5762@w3.org>
* Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org> [2008-12-08 15:54+0000]
> 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).  

yeah, i see my mail was a bit late to enter into consideration. that's
what i get for painting my apartment when i should be geeking.

> 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.

will you be available tomorrow to chat about powder-s+xml? after
geeking with Philippe Le Hegaret and Ralph Swick, we came to the
conclusion that +rdf+xml was worth a certain amount of fight (note
that the reasons for +xml also apply to rdf).
  http://www.w3.org/2008/12/rdf-media-types/

the prob was that we weren't convinced that POWDER-S should be
other than application/rdf+xml, so a chat might help. i have
telecons starting at 1500Z. (i wanted to spare ietf-types from
this discussion as i'm not sure how interested they'll be.)
o

> 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,
>>>> à 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/

-- 
-eric

office: +1.617.258.5741 32-G528, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
mobile: +1.617.599.3509

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

Received on Monday, 8 December 2008 20:21:31 GMT

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