Re: Survey for media-type evolution

Thanks Dominik,

that's very good point (I confess that I hadn't even checked RFC 6838 
about that).

It is still interesting, I believe, to know how implementations out 
there actually behave. But it is also good to know that, spec-wise, it 
should be OK to add the 'version' parameter.

   pa

On 14/02/2025 20:25, ddooss@wp.pl wrote:
> Hi Pierre-Antoine,
>
> From a theoretical standpoint, if RDF processing tools correctly 
> implement RFC 6838 (which defines media types and their parameters), 
> the version parameter should be gracefully ignored unless explicitly 
> specified in the tool’s processing logic. RFC 6838 states that 
> parameters not defined in a given media type specification must be 
> ignored by default unless they alter the processing of the content. 
> Therefore, legacy implementations that adhere to this standard should 
> not be affected by the introduction of a version parameter.
>
> Best,
> Dominik
>
> Dnia 14 lutego 2025 11:37 Pierre-Antoine Champin 
> <pierre-antoine@w3.org> napisał(a):
>
>     Dear Semantic Web community,
>
>     TL/DR: do your RDF tools encounter problems when loading the
>     following resources?
>
>     https://perso.liris.cnrs.fr/pierre-antoine.champin/index.nt
>     <https://perso.liris.cnrs.fr/pierre-antoine.champin/index.nt>
>     https://perso.liris.cnrs.fr/pierre-antoine.champin/index.rdf
>     <https://perso.liris.cnrs.fr/pierre-antoine.champin/index.rdf>
>     https://perso.liris.cnrs.fr/pierre-antoine.champin/index.ttl
>     <https://perso.liris.cnrs.fr/pierre-antoine.champin/index.ttl>
>
>     -----
>
>     As many of you know, the W3C RDF-Star Working Group [1] is
>     currently extending the RDF abstract syntax and the corresponding
>     serialization formats. A long standing question that we have to
>     respond is whether we should change the media types of the
>     formats, or keep them for the new versions of the format [2,3].
>
>     A middle-way was discussed yesterday by the Working Group [4],
>     consisting in adding a 'version' parameter to the media-types,
>     e.g. 'text/turtle;version=1.2'. The goal of this email is *not* to
>     discus the merits and drawbacks of this approach, but to check an
>     assumption that some of us have, namely:
>
>         Despite the fact that the current media-types do not support
>     the version parameter currently, its presence will be gracefully
>     ignored by current implementation.
>
>     To test this hypothesis, I have added such a version parameter on
>     different versions of my own FOAF profile, and I have checked that
>     the following tools load from these URLs without any trouble:
>
>     - sophia-cli (https://github.com/pchampin/sophia-cli
>     <https://github.com/pchampin/sophia-cli>)
>     - rapper 2.0.16 (https://librdf.org/ <https://librdf.org/>)
>     - Jena RIOT 5.2.0 (https://jena.apache.org/
>     <https://jena.apache.org/>)
>     - Ruby RDF command line tool 3.3.2 (https://ruby-rdf.github.io/
>     <https://ruby-rdf.github.io/>)
>     - Python RDFlib 7.1.1 (https://rdflib.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
>     <https://rdflib.readthedocs.io/en/stable/> -- via the method
>     Graph.parse)
>
>     It would be great if we could collectively extend this list, to
>     assess how disruptive (if at all) the use of the 'version'
>     parameter would be on legacy implementations. Please respond to
>     this email with your own experiment.
>
>       thanks in advance,
>       pa
>
>
>     PS: let me emphasize again that, if you want to discuss the pros
>     and cons of this solution, you should contribute to [3], but do
>     *not* do it in response to this email, to keep the thread focus on
>     the survey itself :)
>
>     [1] https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/rdf-star
>     <https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/rdf-star>
>     [2]
>     https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2025Jan/0015.html
>     <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2025Jan/0015.html>
>     [3] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/141
>     <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/issues/141>
>     [4] https://www.w3.org/2025/02/13-rdf-star-minutes.html#fc3f
>     <https://www.w3.org/2025/02/13-rdf-star-minutes.html#fc3f>
>