W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: SPARQL Query Results XML Format - last call work (MIME stuff)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:43:59 -0500
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1122479040.31751.70.camel@localhost>

On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 18:22 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
> In http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/
> $Revision: 1.52 $ of $Date: 2005/07/26 17:11:25 $

> I took them from http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-dawg-irc before the formal
> record appears, I'll check when it does.
> 
> After "PROPOSED: that http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/mime.txt
> (delegating choice of file extension to the editor) addresses issue
> resultsMimeType, contingent on review by Elias"
> 
> I chose a file extension of ".srx"

very well.

>  which has no previous common record
> in the file extension websites referred to in the telcon.  This was
> actioned via a resolution in the telcon.  This changes section 5, see
> next item.
> 
> 
> ACTION DaveB: add mime type to results format
> 
> Done.  Reviewers of the mime-type registration (EliasT, DanC) you might
> prefer to read section 5 of the draft
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rf1/#mime
> which I've made into a stand-out HTML style rather than <pre>, and added
> links.


About the "Person & email address to contact for further information"
and the "Author/Change controller"... It's correct to say
that "The W3C has change control over these specifications".
And what you say about the DAWG is correct, though perhaps not
relevant in a few years. I'm not sure about listing you
as the contact person; that's a long time commitment. Maybe
it's OK to give your name, but for the email address,
use public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org . And maybe give both
your name and EricP's.


I don't see any reason to have a separate references section for
the MIME template. I'd rather have one references list.

Hmm... while in theory, of course it's true that...
  Documents can be encrypted and signed using  
  [W3C.REC-xmlenc-core-20021210] and
  [W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20020212], respectively

But by saying that in this spec, it becomes a feature that
we need to test before PR. I'm not really sure our schema
allows xmldsig to be mixed in, and I'm not sure SPARQL
clients will grok if a wrapper is added.

I suggest dropping that text, unless somebody wants to
work out the details of using xml sig/enc in this MIME type.



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 15:44:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT