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

Re: 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 09:24:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0208020922530.1842-100000@tux.w3.org>

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Graham Klyne wrote:

> At 08:16 AM 8/2/02 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >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.
>
> Isn't true because the registration process isn't complete, or because of
> the assertional nature claimed?

latter. It doesn't claim all applicatoin/rdf+xml is asserted (by publisher
or whoever -- that's part of the problem).

> Regarding the latter, I can't find any definitive documentation of this --
> the new document was intended to provide that (among other things) but I
> understood that was the intent of the working group;  it's an assumption
> that seems to me to have permeated many discussions we've had; e.g.
>
> [[
> 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.
> ]]
> - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0003.html

that's not in the media type registration (thankfully). RDF can't do a
protocol's job for it.

dan

>
> [[
> ========= 12: Issue: rdfms-assertion
> [14:53:17] JosD
> Brian explains his exchange with TimBL who suggests that appropriate words
> appear in mime-type document
> ]]
> - http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-05-17.html
>
> [[
> ... but I'd feel better if I had a more clear picture
> of the rdfms-assertion and MIME type issues.
> ]]
> - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0131.html
>
> [[
> ..
>  >where ucc: is bound to a "Uniform commercial code"
>  >schema, ratified by some 47 out of the 50 United States,
>  >and you serve that document via an HTTP 200 response,
>  >then you are in fact obliged to honor that offer just
>  >as if it were published in a printed catalog.
>  >
>  >The HTTP 200 bit is quite relevant... this issue has
>  >a lot to do with the protocol context in which RDF is used.
>  >As such, I originally considered this issue part of
>  >   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#mime-types-for-rdf-docs
>  >but it was split out.
> ]]
> - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0487.html
>
> I concede that nothing here is definitive, and in reviewing the various
> discussions I think I've maybe focused too exclusively on MIME type -- but
> the idea that protocol context (which IMO includes MIME type) goes toward
> determining if some RDF is asserted I think *is* a common understanding.
>
> #g
>
>
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
>
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 09:24:20 EDT

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