W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2004

Re: Unresolved issue re media type

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 18:09:54 +0000
Message-ID: <3FF9A872.5010703@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org

Mark Baker wrote:

> Hi Brian.
> I'm CCing www-archive ...

ok, me too.  This email has some process'y stuff first and ends with a 
constructive suggestion for moving forward.

> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:49:13AM +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>>Hi Mark,
>>I believe this relates to WG issue:
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#mime-types-for-rdf-docs
>>You will see that the WG resolved to register a single mime type for RDF.
> Yes, I saw that, thanks.  But that decision was made before I raised my
> issue.  I also didn't see any discussion in the resolution of that issue
> that suggests that the group considered my issue.

The responsible editor didn't see your message as raising a new issue, 
as you acknowledged in your last message in the thread.  I don't see any 
new information that should have caused the WG to reconsider its 
decision on the existing issue.


>>Also of relevance might be the property test:entailmentRules described 
>>in the test cases document:
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/
>>This is used to specify what entailments should be applied when running 
>>a test case.  Perhaps this or a similar mechanism will meet your needs.
> Ah, I wasn't familiar with that.  Very interesting and relevant.
> If that feature were part of the RDF model, it may very well have
> sufficed (though would still be suboptimal).
>>Are the current specs acceptable for this version of RDF?
> No, I don't believe so.


> From the discussions I've had with folks on this issue, it seems as
> though I'm certainly in the minority, so I'm not exactly expecting to
> have this resolved in my favour.  But it would be nice to have the WG
> respond officially about its position on this subject so that I have
> the option of going to the TAG with a URI to the decision.

I think you have that.

Note the issue specifically asks about a mime-type for rdfs:


Issue mime-types-for-rdf-docs: What mime type should RDF Schema and 
other RDF documents have?

There is the WG's original decision documented in item 8 in the minutes.


which is a WG decision that this issue can be closed by defining a 
mime-type for RDF/XML documents.

The WG considered that issue and decided.  That you asked the same 
question again later doesn't change the fact of the WG's decision.

> I don't believe it's a serious enough issue - all things considered -
> to hold up going to Rec,


  though I do believe it (the use
> of application/rdf+xml for messages which assume RDF Schema inference)
> an architectural flaw that will need to be addressed at some point.
> Hence my request for a decision to be rendered.

If you take this to the TAG, you are going to have to explain what is 
special about RDFS (or some small set of RDF vocabularies) or that 
mime-types are an appropriate mechanism to use to specify arbitrary 
required processing of published documents, which I think will be a very 
tough sell.

Another approach to this would be to take your *requirement* (i.e. a 
mime-type for rdfs is a solution, not a requirement) up with the (about 
to be?) proposed rdf best practices WG.  You could email Guus Schreiber 
and see if they would be willing to take it on.  If not then you could 
go to the SW coordination group and see what they (we) have to say. 
Its a bit of long winded dance, but then, if all that fails, you will 
have done all you can before escalating to the TAG, if escalation is how 
you see it.

Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 13:16:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:21 UTC