W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2003

Re: RDF/XML Media Type registration draft

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:02:56 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>, ietf-types@iana.org
Cc: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


Following some informal discussion in the RDFcore working group, I'm 
sending these as personal review comments to you, and to the MIME types 
review list...


Broadly, I think this looks fine, but the RDFcore working group has made a 
number of changes to the RDF specifications in response to last call 
comments since the above MIME type registration draft was issued.  The 
following comments would, in my view, help to bring the proposed MIME type 
registration more closely in line with the current RDF specification status.

Section 2, 3:
The citation for the RDF data model is to the RDF Semantics document 
[2]:  the definition of the abstract syntax has now been moved to the RDF 
Concepts [3], and I think that would now be a more helpful citation.

Section 3:
Would it be appropriate to cite the RDF Semantics in the interoperability 
considerations section? E.g.
RDF is intended to allow common information to be exchanged between 
disparate applications.  A basis for building common understanding is 
provided by a formal semantics [2?], and applications that use RDF should 
do so in ways that are consistent with this.

Section 4:
In response to last-call feedback, we decided to pull the "social context" 
material from Concepts.  I think that it would be appropriate to also pull 
it from the MIME type registration;  i.e. remove all of section 4.

Section 5:
Would it be appropriate to cite RDF Concepts here? cf:




[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/
(current editor's working draft)

[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/
(current editors' working draft)

At 10:23 24/07/03 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>I'm soliciting comments on the media type registration draft for
>http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype -02.html
>As required by section 2.3.1 of RFC 2048, I've sent it for review to
>ietf-types and ietf-xml-mime.  Dan Connolly says the document has
>undergone sufficient W3C review because it is [referenced from the
>syntax draft].  However, I'm happy to take any comments from the WG or
>other W3Cers/RDFers at the same time. Do folks think sending a note to
>www-rdf-interest or something would be in order?
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-MIME- Type
>I plan to fold in all the comments I receive and release a new version
>in two weeks. (After that, I need to ask the IESG if they want to do
>their own Last Call, wait for RDF to go to Recommendation, update the
>draft to refer to the Recommendation, and then submit it to be
>published as an RFC.)
>Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/

Graham Klyne
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2003 11:24:20 UTC

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