This wiki is locked. Future workgroup activity and specification development must take place at our new wiki. For more information, see this blog post about the new governance model and this post about changes to the website.
-- IanGreen - 24 Aug 2009

Notes for meeting on 24th August 2009.

In addition to reviews, the following are known gaps in the specification.

  • JSON representations. These need to be defined and examples given. See also Issue 8.
  • Should there be a way of requesting a OSLC-RDM-* content type without using Accept headers?
  • Decision

The following are concerns relating to what has already been drafted:

  • Issue 8: Lack of precision in the meaning of resource representations (XML and JSON).
  • Issue 5: Content model, and to some extent, Issue 3
Topic revision: r2 - 24 Aug 2009 - 11:52:43 - IanGreen
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Copyright � by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Contributions are governed by our Terms of Use
Ideas, requests, problems regarding this site? Send feedback