W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2004

Re: RDF as application/rdf+xml

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:14:44 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040323131300.02f130f0@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

It turns out that getting Apache to serve application/rdf+xml is dead 
easy.  Simply adding the following line to one's .htaccess file does the 
trick for *.rdf files.

   AddType application/rdf+xml .rdf

#g
--

At 13:31 19/03/04 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote:

>* Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> [2004-03-19 17:20+0000]
> >
> > I'm wondering how many applications/systems are actually set up to serve
> > RDF as application/rdf+xml.  A brief exploration with Google suggests that
> > many RDF files are currently served as text/plain or text/xml, and just a
> > few as application/rdf+xml.
> >
> > Is this typical?
>
>Depends how you want to count, perhaps. There are pushing 2 million
>RDF files served from LiveJournal as application/rdf+xml, for example.
>(eg. http://www.livejournal.com/users/danbri/data/foaf). Similarly from
>TypePad eg  http://foaf.typepad.com/foaf.rdf -- in general when
>providers make FOAF profile documents available, they use the right
>type. With RSS I think the situation is more complex, and
>application/rss+xml or somesuch might be common.
>
>Stats from a recent RDF crawler might be interesting; Google doesn't
>follow RDF-to-RDF rdfs:seeAlso references...
>
>Dan

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 08:15:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 February 2014 13:20:07 UTC