Re: URIs for MIME types

James Tauber <> writes:

> Well, IANA would probably have to do it. But I agree it's trivial. Something
> like:
> 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


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?


Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 12:57:36 UTC