- From: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:29:26 -0700
- To: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Hi Aaron, Good job on the media type document. One major question: Should the media type document be extended to define text/rdf+xml, and the use of a +rdf+xml suffix, in addition to its current definition of application/rdf+xml? The main reason the XML media types document proposed the +xml suffix was because there are entirely different formats, such as SVG vs. XHTML, which are expressed in XML but need very different software to handle. I have assumed the same will happen with RDF, where generic RDF software could deal with things as triples, but different RDF Schemas would arise for vastly different applications, such as Calendaring vs. descriptive metadata. Those specific schemas would need their own software for dealing with their specific elements. Regards, Ron Daniel Jr. Standards Architect Tel: +1 415 778 3113 Fax: +1 415 778 3131 Email: rdaniel@interwoven.com Visit www.interwoven.com Moving Business to the Web > -----Original Message----- > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Aaron Swartz > Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 11:31 AM > To: RDF Interest > Cc: Dan Connolly > Subject: RDF Media Type > > > I've taken Dan Connolly's rough draft[1] and tried to put it > together into a > media type proposal: > > http://blogspace.com/rdf/mimetype > > I'd appreciate comments, corrections and suggestions. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/03mr/rdf_mt > > -- > Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| RSS Info > <http://www.aaronsw.com> | <http://www.blogspace.com/rss/> > AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| news and information on the RSS format
Received on Monday, 23 April 2001 12:30:37 UTC