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

Re: Media Type Sub-Sub-types?

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 02:04:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4BBA88A4.1030108@webr3.org>
To: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, xiao@renci.org, www-tag@w3.org
Story Henry wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2010, at 00:47, Nathan wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps the real question is: does an ontology weigh in heavily enough
>> to be considered a definition of syntax, in the specific use case of a
>> functionality dependent http verb?
> 
> No, you can mix and match ontologies. Ontologies do not have any impleication
> as to syntax. Any XML doc out there could be mapped to an rdf graph, expressed 
> in an ontology, and furthermore there are a dozen rdf syntaxes out there. This is
> why trying to tie this into mime types is really the wrong way to go about things.

You can mix and match ontologies, Ontologies do not have any implication
as to syntax. However, the presence of a specific ontology in an RDF
document (regardless of serialization) does have very significant
functionality implications, and their presence is an indication
(instruction even) of how the specific RDF document should be
interpreted by a machine in a given context.

See ACL, diff, and cert/foaf when used with FOAF+SSL. In all of these
cases the lack of a specific ontology has very serious implications.

As Larry said: 'An "Internet Media Type" is more than a definition of
syntax -- it's is an indication of intent, by the sender, for how the
sender wishes the receiver to interpret the content being sent.'

Do the aforementioned ontologies don't come under that banner..?

> I think what you really want is something like SPARQL, or even SPARUL. There
> is a method there to do updates to graphs, and  it is easy with a query to find out
> what types of relations the server knows of. Eg you could ask:
> 
> SELECT ?p
> WHERE { [] ?p ?o }
> 
> Which would tell you all the classes it knew of.

I'm quite sure that what I'm looking for in this scenario is certainly
not SPARQL or even SPARUL, or the forthcoming "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP
Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs", however nice they may be.

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Diff
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 01:05:13 UTC

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