- From: Phil Archer <phil.archer@talis.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:07:29 +0000
- To: Peter Williams <pezra@barelyenough.org>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
Hi Peter, The content type type is orthogonal to the content. If you're shipping RDF/XML then application/rdf+xml is the correct content type. By analogy, HTML is served with a content type of text/html whether the page is about chalk or cheese. The representation is what's important so, IMO, the answer to your question is a clear 'yes, the generic media type is appropriate.' Phil. On 20/01/2011 23:24, Peter Williams wrote: > I am involved in a standards effort to develop an rdf vocabulary for > describing software packages.[1] We anticipate that a primary use for > the vocabulary will be to encode data regarding particular packages in > rdf/xml and to pass these rdf/xml files between agents (via http, > email, etc). In that situation, is it appropriate to register a media > type specifically for this rdf-based vocabulary? Or would using > generic rdf+xml media type be more appropriate? > > Thanks in advance for your thoughts. > > [1]: http://spdx.org > > Peter > barelyenough.org > > -- Phil Archer Talis Systems Ltd, Web: http://www.talis.com Tel: +44 1473 434770 Twitter: philarcher1 LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/philarcher Personal: http://philarcher.org
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 00:08:07 UTC