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

Re: application/rdf+xml Media Type Registration [DRAFT]

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:28:14 -0600
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8CBDE6E.2DB2E%me@aaronsw.com>
On 2002-03-28 9:59 AM, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> I took another look at this.  Good stuff Aaron, and thanks again.

Unfortunately, it seems you've reviewed an older draft and many of your
requests have been fixed.

>>    It is important to note that RDF language is used to transmit
>>    meaningful information, and thus has the same legal status as
>>    assertions, in say, English would.
> How about the following based on the text from F2F meeting:

This paragraph was simply removed.

>>       Optional parameters: charset
>> 
>>          Same as charset parameter of application/xml as specified in
>>          [5].
> 
> Do we want to parameterize this.  " as specified in [5] or the most recent
> specification that supercedes it."

Good question, I'm not sure what the IETF thinks about that sort of thing.

>>       Interoperability considerations:
>> 
>>          For maximum interoperability it is recommend that RDF files use
>>          the Basic (un-abbreviated) 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.
> 
> Where did this come from?

This was changed to:

         It is recommended that RDF documents follow the newer RDF/XML
         Syntax Grammar [1] as opposed to the older RDF Model and Syntax
         specification [3].

> How is versioning handled in mime-types, if at all?

Graham?
 
> parseType literal is another - the string is non-deterministic.

Can you explain what you mean here?

>>          Magic number(s): none
>> 
>>             Although no byte sequences can be counted on to consistently
>>             identify RDF, RDF documents will have the sequence "http://
>>             www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" to identify the RDF
>>             namespace.  This will usually be towards the top of the
>>             document.
> 
> They *will commonly* have.

In what situations would they not have this?

>>          @@ some w3t person? danbri?
> 
> Danbri would be good.

Danbri is in the latest draft, after asking him off list.

> [...] In RDF, a URI with a fragment identifier names a resource.

Clearly, the point that needs to be made is that it can name any resource.
I'm not sure how to word this, though.

> The  XML element  with an rdf:ID attribute whose value is equal to the
> fragment identifier in the RDF/XML representation of the resource named by the
> URI is an RDF/XML representation of that resource.

I'm having trouble following this. For one thing, the element isn't an
RDF/XML document and "RDF/XML representation" isn't defined anywhere.
 
-- 
      "Aaron Swartz"      |              The Semantic Web
 <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> |        i'm working to make it happen
Received on Saturday, 30 March 2002 22:30:25 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:23 EDT