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 <[email protected]>

        RDF Interest Group <[email protected]>

        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: [email protected]
  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-
  [email protected].

Acknowledgement

  Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
  Internet Society.







Swartz                       Informational                      [Page 8]