W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2001

Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#mime-types-for-rdf-docs

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 23:35:25 -0500
To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B714F8BC.A77F%aswartz@upclink.com>
This issue deals with the fact that there is no mime/media type for RDF
documents. Based on Dan Connoly's rough draft[1] I have drafted a proposed
resolution to the issue:

http://blogspace.com/rdf/mimetype

This draft as been announced to RDF-Interest[2] and featured on XMLhack[3].
No serious issues have been raised. (Minor ones have been fixed.) Of course,
the preparation of this draft requires a resolution to certain other issues:

- What is the fragment syntax for RDF?
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-fragments

While I feel it would be a good idea to include a fragment syntax in the
media type registration, I felt that the RDF community had not come to
consensus on this issue, so it is not currently included. I'd suggest
wording close to what TimBL suggests:

    A fragment "n" in an RDF/XML document "d" refers to the resource d#n
    as described by the document.

It's rather vague, but I think it best expresses the intention of RDF.

- It needs to be clear that an RDF statement is an assertion.
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion

As was clear in Dan Connolly's draft[1], it is important that the media type
specification make this point clear. I have included the wording:

    Because RDF is a format for semantically-meaningful information, it is
    important to note that transmission of RDF via HTTP, SMTP or some
    similar protocol, means that the sender asserts the content of the RDF
    document.

- Interoperability Considerations

Also of interest to the working group will be this section:

    Interoperability considerations:
        For maximum interoperability it is recommend that RDF files use the
        Basic RDF Syntax, since this is most likely to be understood by RDF
        parsers and remain stable through future RDF specifications. It is
        also recommended that RDF documents do not use processing
        instructions, as RDF parsers give no meaning to them.

Thank you for your comments and consideration of this draft,

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/03mr/rdf_mt
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/0367.html
[3] http://xmlhack.com/read.php?item=1185
-- 
[ :name "Aaron Swartz" ;
  :mbox <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ;
  :homepage <http://www.aaronsw.com> ] is dc:author of <> .
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:35:36 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:45 EDT