W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Media Type Sub-Sub-types?

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 01:07:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4BB929CB.5090205@webr3.org>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
CC: www-tag@w3.org
With regards content-negotiation in HTTPBIS, the last thing I'd want is
to have such a tricky subject re-opened because of a quick mail from me;
would gladly retract my question!

Thinking further about my question, I'm now thinking perhaps this could
actually be leveraged for the greater good.

For instance, if the need for an ****+rdf media type scenario came
about, then the specification / media type could determine a fixed
serialization, as in only n3 not rdf/xml or other.

This (or a few moves like this) could weight and shift the whole linked
data + rdf thing towards more readable notations and away from rdf/xml,
possibly even making say N3 the de-facto serialization.

Whilst a semi-evil thought, quite sure this would solve the problem, and
aid adoption of the semantic web / linked data / rdf - hence me saying
"the greater good" above.

All the best,

Nathan


Larry Masinter wrote:
> 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
> 
> http://larry.masinter.net/tag-versioning.html
> 
> 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
> negotiation.  
> 
> 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?
> 
> Larry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of Nathan
> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 4:17 PM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> 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
> remains
> the primary datatype for linked data), then machines will become
> reliant
> 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
> addition
> 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,
> 
> Nathan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 5 April 2010 00:08:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:33 UTC