search

w3c / rdf-star

RDF-star specification
https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/
Other
119 stars 23 forks source link

MIME types and file extensions #26

Closed VladimirAlexiev closed 3 years ago

VladimirAlexiev commented 3 years ago

Standardize MIME types and file extensions of rdf-star and sparql-star formats.

GraphDB and rdf4j do this: https://graphdb.ontotext.com/documentation/free/devhub/rdf-sparql-star.html#mime-types-and-file-extensions-for-rdf-in-rdf4j

@klinovp what does Stardog do?

@hartig How about Blazegraph?

klinovp commented 3 years ago

Stardog did not yet introduce new content types. Apart of RDF* we have extensions for the SPARQL Query Results format (binary, XML, and JSON), e.g. with statement as a new value type (in XML and JSON).

We don't have anything against new MIME types, we just didn't want to do any extra effort before there's some agreement on it, since it's not easy for us to break backward compatibility.

hartig commented 3 years ago

I don't know whether Blazegraph uses special mime types.

Anyways, I agree that the spec should introduce mime types.

hartig commented 3 years ago

Related to this discussion about mime types for the Turtle and SPARQL files, we also have to decide about mime types for the extended formats for serializing the result of a SPARQL* SELECT query. For the latter discussion, I have created a separate issue: #43

pchampin commented 3 years ago

This was discussed during our last call https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-01-22.html#item03

lisp commented 3 years ago

one reading of the ietf registration process [1] and the iana turtle registration [2,3] is that they do not allow for the approach proposed in the last call. the w3c tag finding [4] reinforces this reading - despite that it appears to give up on the interpretation faster than it can present it.

[1] requires, in section 4.4, "Canonicalization and Format Requirements", that

 All registered media types MUST employ a single, canonical data format, regardless of registration tree.

this is followed by a passage which describes the relation between the type registration and the respective specification.

the n-triples iana registration [2] references the w3c n-triples team submission [3] as its specification. while this should be revised to reflect the current tr and could again be revised to indicate some future tr, the current "published specification" does not describe a means to permit encoding variants.

the tag finding [4] suggests that "inconsistency between representation data and metadata is an error that should be discovered and corrected rather than silently ignored." most of its discussion covers user agent rather than server behaviour, but for the passage which describes "bad server configuration".

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838
[2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/turtle
[3] http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-turtle-20080114/
[4] https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html

pchampin commented 3 years ago

Closing this as duplicate, as the discussion took place in #43