W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > March 2004

RE: Self-descriptive assertions

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:34:19 -0000
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E80801EA19DE@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org

Hiya Mark, 

> Hey Stuart,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 04:59:35PM -0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > Hello Mark,
> > 
> > > Fair enough.  What I meant to say was that from a message sender 
> > > POV, describing their RDF/XML document as text/plain is one way to 
> > > avoid communicating the graph.  If any recipient does extract the 
> > > graph, then that's "sniffing", and "bad" per the TAG finding on 
> > > authoritative metadata[1].
> > 
> > Hmmm... that's not quite what the finding says... last para section 
> > 3.2 [2]
> > 
> > "The Internet media type asserts "this is X", not "process this as
follows."
> > Representation metadata does not constrain the receiving agent to 
> > process the representation data in one particular way."
> > 
> > "this is X" meaning this is an instance of media-type X.
> 
> Sorry, I misspoke.

No problem.

> Extracting the graph isn't the bad part.  What's bad is 
> believing that the recipient was trying to communicate the graph.
                     ^^^^^^^^sender?

What (I think) would be bad would be assuming/believing that the sender
meant to send with media-type application/rdf+xml.

> Mark.

Stuart
--
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2004 12:35:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:16 GMT