- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 10:28:58 +0000
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 01:59 PM 3/22/02 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote: >Here's a first draft (in plain text and XML) of the Internet-Draft >(RFC-to-be) for registering the application/rdf+xml media type. > - Aaron Looks good... some comments. > application/rdf+xml Media Type Registration > draft-swartz-rdfxml-mediatype-00 Suggest use: draft-w3c-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-xx.txt (I'm thinking this may get higher IESG/IANA/RFC-editor attention when going for publication/registration.) >Table of Contents > > 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 > 2. application/rdf+xml Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 > 3. Fragment Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 > 4. Historical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Suggest include an IANA considerations, along the lines of: x. IANA considerations This document calls for registration of a new MIME content-type, according to the registration template in section 2. > 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 > References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 > Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 > Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 >1. Introduction > > RDF is a language designed to support the Semantic Web, by > facilitating resource description and data exchange on the Web. RDF > provides common structures that can be used for interoperable data > exchange and follows the W3C design principles of interoperability, > evolution, and decentralization. > > While the RDF data model can be serialized in many ways, the W3C has > defined the RDF/XML syntax [1] to allow RDF to be serialized in an > XML format. The application/rdf+xml media type allows RDF consumers > to identify RDF/XML documents so that they can be processed properly. > > It is important to note that RDF language is used to transmit > meaningful information, and thus has the same legal status as > assertions, in say, English would. I strongly suggest dropping this last paragraph. If there's anything likely to snarl up approval through IETF/IESG/IANA processes, I think this is it. And it's not necessary to make this point for registering the content type. >2. application/rdf+xml Registration > > This is a media type registration as defined in Multipurpose Internet > Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures [3] > > MIME media type name: text Don't you mean "application" ? (I really think text is wrong here: that media type is meant to be for human readable text -- it is now generally felt in MIME circles that text/html is an error. RDF is an order of magnitide less readable to (non-technical) people) > MIME subtype name: rdf+xml > > Required parameters: none > > Optional parameters: charset > > Same as charset parameter of application/xml as specified in > [5]. > > Encoding considerations: > > Same as charset parameter of application/xml as specified in > [5]. > > Security considerations: > > Security considerations include many of those described in > section 10 of [5] and more, due to the semantic nature of RDF. > RDF documents may make assertions about anything, and thus RDF- > based systems want to be certain that they can trust the > document. It is expected that future work with Digital > Signature and "Web of Trust" will make it more clear how to > build secure RDF systems. > > Interoperability considerations: > > For maximum interoperability it is recommend that RDF files use > the Basic (un-abbreviated) RDF Syntax, since this is most > likely to be understood by RDF parsers and remain stable > through future RDF specifications. It is also recommended that > RDF documents do not use processing instructions, as RDF > parsers give no meaning to them. I don't recall the distinction between basic and abbreviated RDF syntax surviving into the latest syntax draft. Further, I think it would be a mistake to propagate this preference, as the abbreviated syntax is, IMO, a bridge between "traditional" XML and RDF and makes it much easier to achieve deployment of RDF use in real-world applications. > Published specification: see [1] > > Applications which use this media type: > > RDF is device-, platform-, and vendor-neutral and is supported > by a wide range of Web user agents and authoring tools. ---------------^^^^ The anti-marketeer in me thinks that "wide" should be dropped. > Additional information: > > Magic number(s): none > > Although no byte sequences can be counted on to consistently > identify RDF, RDF documents will have the sequence "http:// > www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" to identify the RDF > namespace. This will usually be towards the top of the > document. > > File extension(s): .xrdf, .rdf > > Macintosh File Type Code(s): "TEXT" Do you mean "text"? (I don't know, just checking.) > Person & email address for further information: > > Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com> > > @@ some w3t person? danbri? I think a w3t contact might be appropriate here. > Intended usage: COMMON > > Author/Change controller: > > The RDF specification is a work product of the World Wide Web > Consortium. The W3C and the W3C RDF Core Working Group have > change control over the specification. Hmmm... for longevity, I'm wondering about the appropriateness of saying RDFcore WG here. Just commenting. >3. Fragment Identifiers > > Section 4.1 of the URI specification [4] notes that the semantics of > a fragment identifier (part of a URI after a "#") is a property of > the data resulting from a retrieval action, and that the format and > interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type > of the retrieval result. > > However, in RDF, the thing identified by a URI with fragment > identifier does not bear any particular relationship to the thing > identified by the URI alone. This contradicts some readings of the > URI specification [4], so caution is recommended when creating new > RDF terms which use fragment identifiers. s/contradicts/differs from/ s/caution/attention/ (just a reprise of a previous debate ;-) > The rdf:ID and rdf:about attributes can be used to define fragments > in an RDF document. >4. Historical Considerations > > This media type was reserved in [5], saying: > > RDF documents identified using this MIME type are XML documents > whose content describes metadata, as defined by [RDF]. As a > format based on XML, RDF documents SHOULD use the '+xml' suffix > convention in their MIME content-type identifier. However, no > content type has yet been registered for RDF and so this media > type should not be used until such registration has been > completed. > [6] <http://www.w3.org/2001/03mr/rdf_mt> In due course, I think this reference should be expanded to include author, title, etc. > [7] <http://xml.resource.org/> > > >Author's Address > > Aaron Swartz > AaronSw.com > 349 Marshman > Highland Park, IL 60035 > USA It's normal for people not to put personal addresses as part of their contact details: name, optional organization and email address is enough. (I mention this because it may not be wise to put a personal postal address in a very visible public document.) (I'm assuming that is a personal address.) > Phone: +1 847 432 8857 > EMail: me@aaronsw.com .... And finally, I'd suggest we go for an initial Internet-draft publication of this as soon as the WG is happy with it. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Saturday, 23 March 2002 05:25:10 UTC