Re: Unresolved issue re media type

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.

There is also a WEBONT decision not to register separate mime types for 
Owl or any of its variants:

"RESOLVED: to close 5.13 without making a new OWL mime type, observing
that the existing mime types, e.g. app/rdf+xml and app/xml are
sufficient."
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.13-Internet-Media-Type-for-OWL

The RDFCore issue

   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion

may also be relevant to this.  In part it concerns what entailments a 
publisher of RDF endorses.  The director has agreed to this issue being 
postponed, and further discusion is happening in the semantic web 
meaning forum:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/

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.

Are the current specs acceptable for this version of RDF?

Brian

Mark Baker wrote:

> Hi.
> 
> I reviewed the RDF Schema PR and noticed that a previous concern of mine
> wasn't addressed in the latest draft.  The (very brief) discussion on
> www-rdf-comments in which I had the final word, lead me to believe that
> the WG was going to consider the issue and get back to me.  It didn't.
> 
> The thread is;
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/thread.html#342
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Mark.

Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 04:56:34 UTC