W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2006

[VM] Telecon report 2006-02-01

From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:31:43 +0100
To: SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20060206073143.GA1504@Octavius>

Telecon: SWBPD VM TF

Note: was scheduled for 2006-01-31 but actually held 2006-02-01.

IRC: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/01-vmtf-irc
Attendees: Ralph Swick, Alistair Miles, Tom Baker (chair)

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0180.html
Previous: 2006-01-24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0125.html

Topic: Document Title

    RESOLVED: Best Practice Recipes for Publishing RDF vocabularies

Topic: removing content types

    RalphS and Tom concur to removing text/xml and
    application/xml as conditions from the rewrite rules.
    RESOLVED: to remove them.

    Alistair notes: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#MIMEType mime type for OWL
    -- MIME Type section in OWL Reference Guide: 'application/xml'
       is allowed as mime type for owl

    Ralph: we should propose Best Practice, not "all acceptable practices".

Discussion follows...

    Alistair: SKOS and DC - stuff is in quite different places
    Ralph: If they are on different servers, cannot use a type map.
    Type map only works if everything in directory has the same
    quality rules, applies to everything in directory tree.
    Is there a way to configure the whole host?  If always prefer
    to serve HTML over x... without having to do a type map for
    each URI...?

    Al: two use-cases here.  Simple one: when server doesn't
    specify any difference in quality of representations, but
    client does: "I prefer HTML to RDF but I can accept both".
    In that case, cond'l redirects in order.  Additional situation:
    server wants to specify some diff in quality... But why would
    a server want to do that?

    Ralph: in my case - maybe not "real-life" - what happens if
    client does not include any accept header - has no preference.
    The specific rules take care of this - falls through to the
    end.  When I tried this, I wound up not using conditional
    rewrites -- why did this feel like the best solution?
    Maybe write a rewrite condition that says "if there is no
    accept header"...?  I.e., doing a conditional rewrite for a
    missing Accept...?  We should think more about case where
    client can accept both. But not a pressing question...
    Not important enough to delay publication.

    New issue came up:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0185.html
    re: RDF/A Primer Version.  Ben Adida summarized yesterday:

        If you don't have a hash in your URI, then you cannot
        then resolve to URIs with hashes that do not correspond
        to a fragment of a document.  Is this a problem?

        Alistair: recipes specifically dodge this.  Nothing is ever
        served directly from the namespace URI - always a redirect
        from somewhere else.  Therefore, no Web interaction will
        ever tell you that the namespace URI denotes a document.
        I believe if people use these recipes they put themselves
        in the safest possible corner w.r.t. this issue of
        information resources vs. non-information resource.

        Example: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title resolves
        to http://dublincore.org/2003/03/24/dces#title
        (the RDF schema).  The HTML expression is at
        http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#title.
        (For DC, both text/html and application/rdf+xml _should_
        be 303 redirects...)  So DC would not have a problem here.

        Alistair has the edit token to remove the extra mime type
        redirects, then will pass the token back to Tom to send
        mail to the WG.

        Discussion of @@'s in editor's draft

        -- @@TODO verify minimal required overrides

           Alistair: I removed some overrides that Ralph added,
           verified these work, but haven't done exhaustive testing

        -- see recipe 6 (@@TODO).
           Alistair: I plan to leave both of these

        -- @@TODO why. in Content Negotiation
           ACTION: Ralph write text on why examining user-agent is a hack.
           (Doesn't need to stop publication, however.)

        -- [[
           Accept: application/rdf+xml, ???
           @@TODO
           ]]
           in same section
           Alistair: mail from Jeremy on this.

           We should decide whether application/xml should be in
           this list.  There's no mime type for Turtle, N3, etc.

           Ralph: I propose we stick with just mime types for
           W3C Recommendations so this would leave us with just
           application/rdf+xml and text/html.  Today, if they're
           only interested in RDF, they wouldn't need text/html.
           In the future, if GRDDL becomes a Rec, then a large
           class of HTML documents will become carriers for RDF.

           Alistair: propose Accept: application/rdf+xml, application/xml.
           Ralph: yes, because OWL endorses application/xml too.
           Alistair: how about , */* ?
           Ralph: no, we're giving advice specifically to
           "applications that expect to process RDF content".
           Eventually, when we have GRDDL, we can change this.
           

-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                      baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de
SUB - Goettingen State                            +49-551-39-3883
and University Library                           +49-30-8109-9027
Papendiek 14, 37073 Göttingen
Received on Monday, 6 February 2006 07:28:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:46 UTC