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

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

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:10:03 -0500
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B716282A.A8C1%aswartz@upclink.com>
Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> Reading the original mail mesage that raised the issue, the reason why an RDF
> mime type is thought to  be required is to support content negotiation.  Do
> you believe that this is the only motivation, or are there others that we
> should capture?  The current characterization of the issue in the IL document
> isn't very clear.  Would you be able to write some words describing the
> problem that could be included there?

Summary: RDF/XML files have no mime type. This causes problems in the many
applications that use/require mime types including: HTTP content
negotiation, linking from HTML documents (with the type attribute), for
identification of content (in HTTP, SMTP Content-Type headers) so that
RDF-processing browsers (like Mozilla) can treat it properly and for
compatibility with the many other applications that use mime types.

> How closely related do you feel the #rdfms-fragments issue is to this one.
> Should they be merged and treated as one?

rdfms-fragments, I have only recently realized, is being used to identify
two separate issues. The first, which can be resolved in the mime type
specification, is the meaning of a fragment identifier on an RDF document.
The second, is the issue of what a fragment identifier identifies in
general, and how this changes based upon content negotiation. However, this
does not mean that any of these issues can be merged -- they are merely
related. In fact, I think it would be best if rdfms-fragments was separated
into two issues.

> The points that Frank has raised are substantive; I'm not sure that the
> rdfms-assertion issue is going to be easy to deal with.  For example, you say
> that the 'sender' is asserting any RDF statements 'sent' to be true.  Who is
> the sender, e.g. in the case of RDF embedded in your home page?  Your isp?
> When this issue was raised at the rdf-interest f2f, there was a suggestion
> that such assertions should have consequences in law, e.g. if they are
> libelous - how does one determine exactly what has been said in a way that
> will work in court? These are deep waters.  What do you think of following
> Frank's suggestion and separating the mime-type issue from the assertion
> issue?

Personally, I wouldn't mind terribly. I simply thought that I should include
that bit because it was in Dan Connolly's original draft. I suppose that Dan
will have something to say when he gets back from Hong Kong.

[ :name "Aaron Swartz" ;
  :mbox <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ;
  :homepage <http://www.aaronsw.com> ] is dc:author of <> .
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2001 22:11:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:48 UTC