W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Importing RDF documents from RIF

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:00:09 -0400
To: Jose Marķa <josem.alvarez@fundacionctic.org>
cc: public-rif-comments@w3.org, Diego Berrueta Munoz <Diego.Berrueta@fundacionctic.org>
Message-ID: <406.1271869209@waldron>

Dear Jose Maria,

Thank you for your comments. Please, see our response inlined.

 > we would like to raise some questions regarding the practical use of 
 > import clause w.r.t RDF data and OWL ontologies:
 >
 > 1) Which is the minimun set of RDF serialization formats that are 
 > supposed to be supported by a RIF implementation? In the specification 
 > SWC we read:
 >
 > "Several syntaxes have been proposed for the exchange of RDF graphs, the 
 > normative syntax being RDF/XML. RIF does not provide a 
 > format for exchanging RDF graphs; it is assumed that RDF graphs are 
 > exchanged using RDF/XML, or any other syntax that can be used for 
 > representing or exchanging RDF graphs."

With the text you quote, above, we are trying to provide a little
guidance in an area which is architecturally independent of RIF.
While we recognize that RIF implementors need to know which RDF access
protocols and formats they need to support, we do not believe we are
in a position to answer that for them; they have to make their own
assessment of the RDF standards.  We note that when RIF started,
RDF/XML was the only W3C-recommended way to access RDF data; since
then, SPARQL and RDFa have also become W3C Recommendations.  Our
expectation, which we intended to convey in the text you quote, is
that systems will at least support RDF/XML, but that it is better for
us not to set mandates concerning issues in the RDF space.

 > Note that the test cases use the Turtle syntax.

Thank you for pointing out this incongruity.  The test cases have now
been modified to use URLs which are independent of content type, and
the downloadable/live test suite (not the wiki) now includes both
RDF/XML and Turtle.

For example:

   http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/test/repository/tc/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_1/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_1-premise.rif

imports this:

   http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/test/repository/tc/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_1/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_1-import001

which is served as either RDF/XML or Turtle, depending on the HTTP
"Accept" header that the client sends (see below).  The default is
RDF/XML.  A suffix of .rdf or .ttl can also be appended.

 > 2) If more than one RDF serialization format are to be supported or 
 > required, how the RIF implementation can determine the parser to be used 
 > for each import clause?

This is matter for the appropriate Web and RDF specifications.  In
general, with Web dereference operations the underlying protocol
conveys this information.  With HTTP URLs, the Content-Type header
identifies the syntax the delivered content.  For RDF/XML the type is
"application/rdf+xml", for turtle it's "text/turtle", etc.  See
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.17 and
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ for more details on that
mechanism.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
<mailto:public-rif-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Best regards,

Sandro Hawke, in behalf of the RIF WG
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 17:00:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 April 2010 17:00:15 GMT