- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:10:03 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > Reading the original mail mesage that raised the issue, the reason why an RDF > mime type is thought to be required is to support content negotiation. Do > you believe that this is the only motivation, or are there others that we > should capture? The current characterization of the issue in the IL document > isn't very clear. Would you be able to write some words describing the > problem that could be included there? Summary: RDF/XML files have no mime type. This causes problems in the many applications that use/require mime types including: HTTP content negotiation, linking from HTML documents (with the type attribute), for identification of content (in HTTP, SMTP Content-Type headers) so that RDF-processing browsers (like Mozilla) can treat it properly and for compatibility with the many other applications that use mime types. > How closely related do you feel the #rdfms-fragments issue is to this one. > Should they be merged and treated as one? rdfms-fragments, I have only recently realized, is being used to identify two separate issues. The first, which can be resolved in the mime type specification, is the meaning of a fragment identifier on an RDF document. The second, is the issue of what a fragment identifier identifies in general, and how this changes based upon content negotiation. However, this does not mean that any of these issues can be merged -- they are merely related. In fact, I think it would be best if rdfms-fragments was separated into two issues. > The points that Frank has raised are substantive; I'm not sure that the > rdfms-assertion issue is going to be easy to deal with. For example, you say > that the 'sender' is asserting any RDF statements 'sent' to be true. Who is > the sender, e.g. in the case of RDF embedded in your home page? Your isp? > When this issue was raised at the rdf-interest f2f, there was a suggestion > that such assertions should have consequences in law, e.g. if they are > libelous - how does one determine exactly what has been said in a way that > will work in court? These are deep waters. What do you think of following > Frank's suggestion and separating the mime-type issue from the assertion > issue? Personally, I wouldn't mind terribly. I simply thought that I should include that bit because it was in Dan Connolly's original draft. I suppose that Dan will have something to say when he gets back from Hong Kong. -- [ :name "Aaron Swartz" ; :mbox <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; :homepage <http://www.aaronsw.com> ] is dc:author of <> .
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2001 22:11:23 UTC