Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

INFORMATIONAL
Network Working Group                                          A. SwartzRequest for Comments: 3870                                   AaronSw.comCategory: Informational                                   September 2004application/rdf+xml Media Type RegistrationStatus 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 Contents1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.  application/rdf+xml Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23.  Fragment Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44.  Historical Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .710. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Swartz                       Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 3870                  application/rdf+xml             September 20041. 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 inBCP 14,RFC 2119 [6].2. application/rdf+xml Registration   This is a media type registration as defined inRFC 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 inRFC3023 [4].      Encoding considerations:         Same as charset parameter of application/xml, defined inRFC3023 [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: COMMONSwartz                       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 inRFC 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 inSection 2.Swartz                       Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 3870                  application/rdf+xml             September 20046.  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   sections3.4,3.5,3.10, [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 20048.  References8.1.  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",RFC3023, January 2001.   [5]  Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet        Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures",BCP13,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 200410.  Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 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 inBCP 78 andBCP 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 athttp://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]

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp