- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:19:02 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: <fmanola@mitre.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>> I don't think it's that simple. It seems to me that a sender may be
>> transmitting RDF (i.e., this media type) for all sorts of reasons, only
>> one of which is that the sender asserts the RDF content.
> In those cases, one option is to use application/xml or
> application/octet-stream or whatever. Aaron, I suggest
> adding something to that effect in the spec. i.e.
> "use of this media type means you're asserting it. If
> you don't mean to assert it, use some other applicable
> media type such as application/xml or application/octet-stream."
> or something like that. Also note that they can
> quote/reify it...
Good point -- I've used this wording:
Because RDF is a format for semantically-meaningful information, it is
important to note that transmission of RDF under this media type,
whether via HTTP, SMTP or some similar protocol, means that the sender
asserts the content of the RDF document. If this is not desirable, such
as when a system is forwarding RDF written by someone else, another
applicable media type, such as application/xml or
application/octet-stream should be used. Also note that RDF provides
reification so that RDF statements can be sent and discussed without
actually being asserted themselves.
--
[ :name "Aaron Swartz" ;
:mbox <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ;
:homepage <http://www.aaronsw.com> ] is dc:author of <> .
Received on Friday, 4 May 2001 17:19:09 UTC