W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

comments on http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/Current/Overview.htm - mistake re media type

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:16:06 -0400 (EDT)
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0208020808440.1842-100000@tux.w3.org>



This is the main comment that jumped at me as I read this doc (v1.27 a/c
to the embedded CVS log comments). Only other comment is a nagging worry
that this is too close to Primer territory in a few places. Sorry not to
provide details.

Anyway, re
http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/Current/Overview.htm#section-Social

[[
A media type, application/rdf+xml is being registered for indicating the
use of RDF/XML as an assertional representation in this way
[RDF-MIME-TYPE].
]]

This isn't true, as far as I can tell. Please remove this paragrpah or
move it elsewhere in the doc.

 Re-reading
http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/Current/Overview.htm#ref-rdf-mime-type
->
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-00.txt

...I see no evidence that content published as application/rdf+xml must be
asserted. I think the mediatype registration was slimmed down to avoid
such talk (thankfully).

<implementorfeedback>
I currently publish several documents as application/rdf+xml that I do not
assert, fwiw. I use that media type only so that others know the documents
are encodings of RDF graphs. The cotnent of the graph can then bootstrap
the who-said-what side of things, or not, as the case may be. For eg. it
might say that I'm the dc:creator, and point to my PGP signature of the
doc.
</implementorfeedback>


cheers,

Dan
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 08:16:06 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:23 EDT