W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: comments on http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/Current/Overview.htm - mistake re media type

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:31:39 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 08:16 AM 8/2/02 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
>Anyway, re
>A media type, application/rdf+xml is being registered for indicating the
>use of RDF/XML as an assertional representation in this way
>This isn't true, as far as I can tell. Please remove this paragrpah or
>move it elsewhere in the doc.

Isn't true because the registration process isn't complete, or because of 
the assertional nature claimed?

Regarding the latter, I can't find any definitive documentation of this -- 
the new document was intended to provide that (among other things) but I 
understood that was the intent of the working group;  it's an assumption 
that seems to me to have permeated many discussions we've had; e.g.

As was clear in Dan Connolly's draft[1], it is important that the media type
specification make this point clear. I have included the wording:

     Because RDF is a format for semantically-meaningful information, it is
     important to note that transmission of RDF via HTTP, SMTP or some
     similar protocol, means that the sender asserts the content of the RDF
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0003.html

========= 12: Issue: rdfms-assertion
[14:53:17] JosD
Brian explains his exchange with TimBL who suggests that appropriate words 
appear in mime-type document
- http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-05-17.html

... but I'd feel better if I had a more clear picture
of the rdfms-assertion and MIME type issues.
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0131.html

 >where ucc: is bound to a "Uniform commercial code"
 >schema, ratified by some 47 out of the 50 United States,
 >and you serve that document via an HTTP 200 response,
 >then you are in fact obliged to honor that offer just
 >as if it were published in a printed catalog.
 >The HTTP 200 bit is quite relevant... this issue has
 >a lot to do with the protocol context in which RDF is used.
 >As such, I originally considered this issue part of
 >   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#mime-types-for-rdf-docs
 >but it was split out.
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0487.html

I concede that nothing here is definitive, and in reviewing the various 
discussions I think I've maybe focused too exclusively on MIME type -- but 
the idea that protocol context (which IMO includes MIME type) goes toward 
determining if some RDF is asserted I think *is* a common understanding.


Graham Klyne
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 09:15:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:14 UTC