doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 451 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3870.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3870.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3076f60
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3870.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                          A. Swartz
+Request for Comments: 3870                                   AaronSw.com
+Category: Informational                                   September 2004
+
+
+              application/rdf+xml Media Type Registration
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document describes a media type (application/rdf+xml) for use
+   with the Extensible Markup Language (XML) serialization of the
+   Resource Description Framework (RDF).  RDF is a language designed to
+   support the Semantic Web, by facilitating resource description and
+   data exchange on the Web.  RDF provides common structures that can be
+   used for interoperable data exchange and follows the World Wide Web
+   Consortium (W3C) design principles of interoperability, evolution,
+   and decentralization.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
+   2.  application/rdf+xml Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
+   3.  Fragment Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
+   4.  Historical Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
+   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
+   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
+   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
+   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
+       8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
+       8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
+   9.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
+   10. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Swartz                       Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3870                  application/rdf+xml             September 2004
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+   RDF is a language designed to support the Semantic Web, by
+   facilitating resource description and data exchange on the Web.  RDF
+   provides common structures that can be used for interoperable data
+   exchange and follows the W3C design principles of interoperability,
+   evolution, and decentralization.
+
+   While the RDF data model [2] can be serialized in many ways, the W3C
+   has defined the RDF/XML syntax [1] to allow RDF to be serialized in
+   an XML format.  The application/rdf+xml media type allows RDF
+   consumers to identify RDF/XML documents so that they can be processed
+   properly.
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [6].
+
+2. application/rdf+xml Registration
+
+   This is a media type registration as defined in RFC 2048,
+   "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration
+   Procedures" [5].
+
+      MIME media type name: application
+
+      MIME subtype name: rdf+xml
+
+      Required parameters: none
+
+      Optional parameters: charset
+
+         Same as charset parameter of application/xml, defined in RFC
+         3023 [4].
+
+      Encoding considerations:
+
+         Same as charset parameter of application/xml, defined in RFC
+         3023 [4].
+
+      Security considerations:
+
+         See "Security Considerations" (Section 6).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Swartz                       Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3870                  application/rdf+xml             September 2004
+
+
+      Interoperability considerations:
+
+         It is RECOMMENDED that RDF documents follow the newer RDF/XML
+         Syntax Grammar [1] as opposed to the older RDF Model and Syntax
+         specification [7].
+
+         RDF is intended to allow common information to be exchanged
+         between disparate applications.  A basis for building common
+         understanding is provided by a formal semantics [3], and
+         applications that use RDF should do so in ways that are
+         consistent with this.
+
+      Published specification:
+
+         see RDF/XML Syntax Grammar [1] and RDF: Concepts and Abstract
+         Syntax [2] and the older RDF Model and Syntax [7]
+
+      Applications which use this media type:
+
+         RDF is device-, platform-, and vendor-neutral and is supported
+         by a range of Web user agents and authoring tools.
+
+      Additional information:
+
+         Magic number(s): none
+
+            Although no byte sequences can be counted on to consistently
+            identify RDF, RDF documents will have the sequence
+            "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" to identify
+            the RDF namespace. This will usually be towards the top of
+            the document.
+
+      File extension(s): .rdf
+
+      Macintosh File Type Code(s): "rdf "
+
+      For further information:
+
+         Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
+
+         RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
+
+         More information may be found on the RDF website:
+
+         <http://www.w3.org/RDF/>
+
+      Intended usage: COMMON
+
+
+
+
+Swartz                       Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3870                  application/rdf+xml             September 2004
+
+
+      Author/Change controller:
+
+         The RDF specification is a work product of the World Wide Web
+         Consortium.  The W3C and the W3C RDF Core Working Group have
+         change control over the specification.
+
+3.  Fragment Identifiers
+
+   The rdf:ID and rdf:about attributes can be used to define fragments
+   in an RDF document.
+
+   Section 4.1 of the URI specification [8] notes that the semantics of
+   a fragment identifier (part of a URI after a "#") is a property of
+   the data resulting from a retrieval action, and that the format and
+   interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type
+   of the retrieval result.
+
+   In RDF, the thing identified by a URI with fragment identifier does
+   not necessarily bear any particular relationship to the thing
+   identified by the URI alone.  This differs from some readings of the
+   URI specification [8], so attention is recommended when creating new
+   RDF terms which use fragment identifiers.
+
+   More details on RDF's treatment of fragment identifiers can be found
+   in the section "Fragment Identifiers" of the RDF Concepts document
+   [2].
+
+4.  Historical Considerations
+
+   This media type was reserved in RFC 3023 [4], saying:
+
+      RDF documents identified using this MIME type are XML documents
+      whose content describes metadata, as defined by [7].  As a format
+      based on XML, RDF documents SHOULD use the '+xml' suffix
+      convention in their MIME content-type identifier.  However, no
+      content type has yet been registered for RDF and so this media
+      type should not be used until such registration has been
+      completed.
+
+5.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This document calls for registration of a new MIME media type,
+   according to the registration in Section 2.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Swartz                       Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3870                  application/rdf+xml             September 2004
+
+
+6.  Security Considerations
+
+   RDF is a generic format for exchanging application information, but
+   application designers must not assume that it provides generic
+   protection against security threats.  RFC 3023 [4], section 10,
+   discusses security concerns for generic XML, which are also
+   applicable to RDF.
+
+   RDF data can be secured for integrity, authenticity and
+   confidentiality using any of the mechanisms available for MIME and
+   XML data, including XML signature, XML encryption, S/MIME, OpenPGP or
+   transport or session level security (e.g., see [9], especially
+   sections 3.4, 3.5, 3.10, [10], [11], [12]).
+
+   RDF is intended to be used in documents that may make assertions
+   about anything, and to this end includes a specification of formal
+   semantics [3].  The semantics provide a basis for combining
+   information from a variety of sources, which may lead to RDF
+   assertions of facts (either by direct assertion, or via logical
+   deduction) that are false, or whose veracity is unclear.  RDF
+   application designers should not omit consideration of the
+   reliability of processed information.  The formal semantics of RDF
+   can help to enhance reliability, since RDF assertions may be linked
+   to a formal description of their derivation.  There is ongoing
+   exploration of mechanisms to record and handle provenance of RDF
+   information.  As far as general techniques are concerned, these are
+   still areas of ongoing research, and application designers must be
+   aware, as always, of "Garbage-in, Garbage-out".
+
+7.  Acknowledgements
+
+   Thanks to Dan Connolly for writing the first version of this document
+   [13], to Andy Powell for <http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-
+   tracking/#mime-types-for-rdf-docs>, to Marshall Rose for his
+   <http://xml.resource.org/> converter, and to Graham Klyne, Jan Grant,
+   and Dave Beckett for their helpful comments on early versions of this
+   document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Swartz                       Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3870                  application/rdf+xml             September 2004
+
+
+8.  References
+
+8.1.  Normative References
+
+   [1]  Beckett, D., "RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)", W3C rdf-
+        syntax-grammar, February 2004, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-
+        rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/>.
+
+   [2]  Klyne, G. and J. Carroll, "Resource Description Framework (RDF):
+        Concepts and Abstract Syntax", W3C rdf-concepts, February 2004,
+        <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/>.
+
+   [3]  Hayes, P., "RDF Model Theory", W3C rdf-mt, February 2004,
+        <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/>.
+
+   [4]  Murata, M., St.Laurent, S. and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types", RFC
+        3023, January 2001.
+
+   [5]  Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet
+        Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", BCP
+        13, RFC 2048, November 1996.
+
+   [6]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
+        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+8.2.  Informative References
+
+   [7]  Lassila, O. and R. Swick, "Resource Description Framework (RDF)
+        Model and Syntax Specification", W3C REC-rdf-syntax, February
+        1999, <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax>.
+
+   [8]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource
+        Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998.
+
+   [9]  Bellovin, S., Schiller, J. and C. Kaufman, Eds., "Security
+        Mechanisms for the Internet", RFC 3631, December 2003.
+
+   [10] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
+
+   [11] Eastlake, D., Reagle, J. and D. Solo, "(Extensible Markup
+        Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", RFC 3275, March
+        2002.
+
+   [12] Eastlake, D. and J. Reagle, "XML Encryption Syntax and
+        Processing", W3C xmlenc-core, December 2002,
+        <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmlenc-core-20021210/>
+
+
+
+
+
+Swartz                       Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3870                  application/rdf+xml             September 2004
+
+
+   [13] Connolly, D., "A media type for Resource Description Framework
+        (RDF)", March 2001, <http://www.w3.org/2001/03mr/rdf_mt>.
+
+9.  Author's Address
+
+   Aaron Swartz
+   AaronSw.com
+   349 Marshman
+   Highland Park, IL  60035
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1 847 432 8857
+   EMail: me@aaronsw.com
+   URI:   http://www.aaronsw.com/
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Swartz                       Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3870                  application/rdf+xml             September 2004
+
+
+10.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
+
+   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+   contained in BCP 78, and at www.rfc-editor.org, and except as set
+   forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/S HE
+   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
+   INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
+   IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
+   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
+   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
+   on the ISOC's procedures with respect to rights in ISOC Documents can
+   be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
+   ipr@ietf.org.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Swartz                       Informational                      [Page 8]
+