RE: Media Type Sub-Sub-types?

This and the previous discussion fits into ACTION-424/ACTION-425.

I would put this in the category of "Things You Might Expect
Internet Media Type Definitions To Do But They Can't".

I do think there's an underlying theory of languages, language
versions, evolutions of languages that goes along with this.

I suppose this would pull in

in which I lumped MIME types or Internet Media Types
as an external global out-of-band indicator, while magic
numbers, as well as internal information, would be
in-band global (or, as a namespace indicator might be)
local indicator.

I said "version", but I think a new version of a language
is a new language.

I think a pointer to content negotiation is fine, with the
clear warning that "Accept:" isn't useful for fine granularity

We've spent a lot of time trying to put content-negotiation
to bed in HTTPBIS, I don't want to re-open it, but perhaps
noting the nature of the difficulty would be a good part
of the discussion.

Would that make sense for you?


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf
Of Nathan
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 4:17 PM
Subject: Media Type Sub-Sub-types?

Hi All,

I've hit upon something which may be a future issue (unsure).

As the read/write web of data is realised (and assuming that RDF
the primary datatype for linked data), then machines will become
on specific ontologies in some use-cases.

With XML we have things like Atom - application/atom+xml. However if
Atom were in RDF instead, and any serialization could be used
(n3/rdf/xml etc), then how would one create a media type for it?

Major / commonly used ontologies will arise; just as with the many
registered ****+xml media types, there may be a need for ****+rdf but
without the limitation of a specific serialization, or with the
of multiple serializations.

Examples: Machines / Agents may wish to indicate they "Accept:" a
specific ontology "i understand x ontology / type of data in y&z
serializations" - perhaps foaf-onto+rdf on the client side or
diff-onto+rdf on the server side (accept-patch).

Perhaps a non-issue, but worth mentioning I hope,

Many Regards,


Received on Sunday, 4 April 2010 23:38:17 UTC