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

RE: Media Type Sub-Sub-types?

From: Sebastien Lambla <seb@serialseb.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 01:19:43 +0000
To: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3DDD0BE655869D4EA506652B3803AEF605926BB5@PRISM.caffeine-it.net>
Note that there is also the possibility of implementing facets in the server for adding subtypes in conneg, rather than media type parameters.

I'm not aware of any http framework implementation that take facets into account per-se, but I was thinking about it for sub-type hinting to the processor in OR, so maybe someone else attempted such an implementation?

Aka application/vnd.acme.hr+xml, application/vnd.acme.hr.customer+xml etc.

See http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2652.html for an example.


-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Nathan
Sent: 05 April 2010 01:08
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Media Type Sub-Sub-types?

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 01:20:22 UTC

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