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

Re: on media types for OWL (5.13)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 25 Oct 2002 16:04:47 -0500
To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1035579889.23979.839.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 21:36, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> Dan Connolly wrote:
[...]
> > So I propose that the reference document specify
> > application/rdf+xml as a suitable media
> > type for OWL KBs written in RDF/xml syntax.
> >
> 
> I'd really like a better story about how such a media type says anything at
> all relevent to OWL.

Hmm... yes, well, I think I'd like a better story too.
But I have spent quite a bit of time trying to tell
the story, and it doesn't get much better no matter
how hard I try.

app/rdf is the most appealing to me, but I have to admit,
I don't have a very strong argument against either
app/xml nor app/owl.

As Peter mentioned in this week's
telcon, this might turn out to be a web architecture
issue as much as a webont/rdf thing.

Meanwhile, it occurs to me that it's not 100% essential
to narrow the choices down to one.

So I have another proposal that will perhaps gain consensus:
specify all three of
	application/xml
	application/rdf+xml
	application/owl+xml
as suitable media types, and say what we know about
the plusses/minuses of each one:

* to use app/xml is not to assert the content of
the document, at least not a strongly as app/rdf;
you might use it for test cases and such where
you don't really mean to assert the contents,
and you expect the namespace pointers, stylesheets,
or whatever you put in your document is enough
for your audience to figure out what they
need to know about it.

* to use app/rdf is to buy into the RDF concepts
spec (cited from the app/rdf registration doc);
i.e. to explicitly license folks to add related documents
to the premises of arguments based on your document
(in particular, if this doc or some document
it rests on uses owl, the owl spec becomes
part of the premise of your argument).

* to use app/owl is ... umm... hmm...

I don't really see why anybody would choose app/owl;
maybe somebody who likes that idea could fill in
the blanks there? Somebody would have to write
up an internet media type specification for app/owl
and get it reviewed in the relevant IETF fora
before it's all said and done. I'm not inclined
to do so.

Current draft of the RDF app media type seems to be:
  http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/rdf-mediatype.html
hmm... doesn't cite the concepts spec yet...

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 17:04:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT