diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3870.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc3870.txt | 451 |
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] + |