- From: Michael Higgins <higgins@maya.com>
- Date: 06 Jun 2000 13:00:54 -0400
- To: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com>
- Cc: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>, "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com> writes: > Well, IANA would probably have to do it. But I agree it's trivial. Something > like: > > http://www.iana.org/mime-types/text/plain > > it what I was envisaging. > > Either that or a new URI schema > > mime:text/plain So what's the general philosophy for this kind of thing? It seems to me that if you did the first, and used those URIs in RDF statements, it would seem like you were making assertions about documents which were, in turn, about MIME types (presumably). Whereas, if you used the latter, it would be clear(er) that you were making assertions using the MIME type itself. The advantage to doing the former is that you could keep an actual document at the given URI that described the given MIME type. But it's unclear whether http://www.iana.org/mime-types/text/plain and http://www.my-weird-domain.org/mime-types/text/plain refer to same MIME type, even if I stored the same description document at the second URI. I'm new. Is there a lot of analogous practice out there for this sort of thing? Mike
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 12:57:36 UTC