- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 02:33:54 +0100
- CC: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, xiao@renci.org, www-tag@w3.org
Nathan wrote: > 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..? ps: I don't care how it's covered or if it's tied to mime types or not; just want to know how a server can say: "I Accept-Patch in RDF using X,Y serializations but the patch must use Z ontology"
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 01:34:30 UTC