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

Re: on media types for OWL (5.13)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:38:45 -0500
Message-Id: <p0511174db9e6d404ddd6@[10.0.1.2]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

>  level of competence on mime types
>  >
>>  Well, my understanding of MIME types is also quite limited, but I believe
>>  that they are supposed to tell you how to interpret the bits of a
>>  document.  My point is that there is no way to distinguish between 
>>RDF/XML and
>>  OWL/RDF/XML documents, and the difference matters.
>
>I don't see any need to distinguish between RDF/XML and
>OWL/RDF/XML documents; I see only a need to distinguish
>between simple-entailment, rdfs-entailment, fast-owl
>entailment, large-owl, entailment, etc.
>
>
>I'm not really sure we're getting anywhere beyond
>my "take your pick of the 3 mime types" proposal;
>you haven't convinced me that app/owl is
>necessary, nor do I have any compelling argument
>that app/rdf is sufficient.
>
>In case it matters, I'd be happy to put the "take
>your pick of the 3" proposal in our next WD,
>but *not* close the issue until we have
>a chance for community review... feedback
>might eliminate or endorse some of the options.


All, I'm happy to go with whatever the WG wants on this.  As Dan is 
aware, there is work associated with doing a Mime type - the 
following, from the TAG finding on Mime types 
(http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0129-mime), makes it clear what we 
would need to do.  Since it needs to be done no later than CR, which 
we hope to reach by December or Jan, we need to reach consensus and 
action someone to do this IFF we decide to go with app/owl as a 
possibility.
  -JH


1. Registration of Media Types by W3C Working Groups

W3C Working Groups engaged in defining a language SHOULD arrange for 
the registration of an Internet Media Type (defined in RFC 2046 
[RFC2046]) for that language; see [IANAREG] for registration 
instructions. The IETF registration forms MUST be available for 
review along with the specification no later than Candidate 
Recommendation (or at last call if the Working Group expects to 
advance directly to Proposed Recommendation). The IETF registration 
forms SHOULD be available for review no later than last call.

The conventions and framework established by RFC 3023 [RFC3023] 
SHOULD be followed when registering an Internet Media Type for a 
language that uses XML syntax.
-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 07:38:53 GMT

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