W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Issue 5.13: OWL media type registration draft

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 13 Nov 2002 10:03:40 -0600
To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1037203420.19693.21509.camel@dirk>

On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 21:44, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> 
> I've authored a media type registration for the media type:
> 
> application/owl+xml
> 
> http://www.openhealth.org/WOWG/owl-mediatype.html
> http://www.openhealth.org/WOWG/owl-mediatype.txt

Are you proposing to leave application/rdf+xml out of the picture?
Ah.. no...

"An OWL document may be served with the application/rdf+xml media type
in which case the document is interpreted according to the
application/rdf+xml media type[3] registration."

Hmm... no discussion of why one would use one or the other.

Well, I guess that's acceptable to me.

By the way... I think this advice applies to us, and
I think we should heed it:
  "Make this registration proposal a normative appendix
  to the W3C specification."
  -- Reagle, Jun 2002
  http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
  during IETF/W3C liaison discussions
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2002Jun/0008.html


> I've defined a parameter "entailment" which accepts the following values:
> 
> simple,RDFS,lite,DL,full
> 
> e.g. when used in an HTTP GET request:
> 
> Accept: application/owl+rdf; entailment="DL"
> 
> licenses OWL DL syntax and semantics
> 
> wheras
> 
> Accept: application/owl+rdf; entailment="simple", application/rdf+xml
> 
> licenses simple RDF semantics.
> 
> A user agent which is only interested in OWL Lite documents (otherwise
> generate an error) might do:
> 
> Accept: application/owl+rdf; entailment="lite"
> 
> etc.

Hmm... I suspect that will be difficult to test; I'm not sure
how widely negotation based on parameters is deployed; is
it even specified?

Hmm... not quite clear... the grammar of the Accept header
looks ambiguous
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1

The entailment="lite" part could parse as a parameter
of the media-range or as an accept-extension.

and there's a health warning:

" Note that some older HTTP applications do not recognize media type
parameters. When sending data to older HTTP applications,
implementations SHOULD only use media type parameters when they are
required by that type/subtype definition. "
 -- http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.7


OK, well, I don't see any outright contradictions, but keep in
mind that we'll need test cases and implementations of
this entailment parameter; I'm not in a good postion to
supply them.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 11:04:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT