W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2000

Re: URIs for MIME types

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:04:12 -0400 (EDT)
To: Michael Higgins <higgins@maya.com>
cc: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com>, "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0006061303400.2879-100000@tux.w3.org>
Ther is a whole arguent in the XML community about namespaces that runs along
these lines...

Charles McCN

On 6 Jun 2000, Michael Higgins wrote:

  James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com> writes:
  > Well, IANA would probably have to do it. But I agree it's trivial. Something
  > like:
  > 	http://www.iana.org/mime-types/text/plain
  > it what I was envisaging.
  > Either that or a new URI schema
  > 	mime:text/plain
  So what's the general philosophy for this kind of thing?  It seems to
  me that if you did the first, and used those URIs in RDF statements,
  it would seem like you were making assertions about documents which
  were, in turn, about MIME types (presumably).  Whereas, if you used
  the latter, it would be clear(er) that you were making assertions
  using the MIME type itself.
  The advantage to doing the former is that you could keep an actual
  document at the given URI that described the given MIME type.  But
  it's unclear whether
  refer to same MIME type, even if I stored the same description
  document at the second URI.
  I'm new.  Is there a lot of analogous practice out there for this sort
  of thing?

Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 13:04:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:30 UTC