- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:35:44 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@eBuilt.com>, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Cc: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>, "'Rob Lanphier'" <robla@real.com>, <uri@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, "Dan Zigmond" <djz@corp.webtv.net>, "Rich Petke" <rpetke@wcom.net>
> AG:: Because the standard syntax is only safe (recognizable) > the RFC-822 header context. The point of URIs is that they > creates a single non-colliding space for "references outside > this context" which is not aware of what is a type, what is an > instance, or much of anything else. It depends really upon the context of use of the identifier, and how useful it is to refer to (in this case) the content type as a first class object with a single identifier, rather than creating some machinery to identify it as an unambiguous term within the system. For example, RDF doesn't particularly need a URI scheme to identify media types, because it's much easier to just invent a predicate relationship between some node and a literal value, which is to the effect that the literal value is the unique MIME type for the subject. :mimeType a daml:UniqueProperty . <http://example.org/> :mimeType "text/html" . The benefit there is that it's a 30 second hack using DAML, rather than a consensus based registration process that may take months, and for the payoff that you have to have systems that recognize DAML. In the RDF context, that isn't much of a setback. So I disagree that MIME content type labels are only safe in the context of RFC 822 headers, but I do agree that on many occasions a URI scheme/URN namespace for them would be more than helpful. Cheers, -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 11:41:30 UTC