Re: Media Type Sub-Sub-types?

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