Re: N-Triples MIME type should not be text/plain -- comment on RDF Test Cases.

Graham Klyne wrote:
> Garret Wilson wrote:
>   
>>> Funny, I thought that a similar line of reasoning was obvious for
>>> RDF/N3. Let's say that I have a "recipe" format that stores recipes for
>>> my recipe application. Or maybe I have a configuration file type for my
>>> operating system. If they were to have content types of
>>> application/recipe+rdf+n3 and application/config+rdf+n3, respectively,
>>> couldn't I edit them in a general RDF editor that could read N3, even if
>>> I didn't have MyRecipeApplication or MyOSConfigEditor handy?
>>>       
>
> Many years ago, my mathematical analysis tutor would say that if a statement was
> "obvious", then either it could be proven in three lines, or it was an
> assumption...   ;)
>   

I meant "obvious" in a similar light-hearted sense.

> With RDF, the distinction between different uses isn't crystalized in the same
> way.

I'm not sure I follow all the subtle distinctions you're trying to find 
between the usability of +xml and +rdf+n3. RDF is more structured and 
more self-consistent than XML will ever be; all I know is that I can 
take any URF (a framework analogous to RDF) example from 
<http://www.urf.name/> and dump it into 
<http://www.guiseframework.com/demo/urfprocess> and explore its 
structure using a dynamic tree control, regardless of the "different 
uses" it might have. If I get an application/recipe+rdf+n3 file, and I 
don't have the recipe plugin, it seems "obviously" :) useful to me to be 
able to explore its structure. I can always download it if I want to.

Anyway, just an opinion.

Cheers,

Garret