[OSLC-CM] ATOM vs RSS/RDF (i.e. RSS 1.0) for collections of cm resources ?

[Olivier Berger]

Le mercredi 21 octobre 2009 à 15:06 -0400, Steve K Speicher a écrit :

>  Looking back, I believe that pagination support and general support
> in products is what led us to ATOM [1].
> [1] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmRestApiV1#Get_a_collection_of_change_reque

That'd make a strong point for ATOM, if such is not possible with RSS
1.0.

Still, I'm not so sure about the paging behaviour on the server side...
I'm not so sure about consistancy of results between subsequent query of
different pages (unless they are "archived" as stated in RFC5005... but
just learning about that and it maybe a REST FAQ ?).

>   There is the possibility of supporting more as we evaluate options. 

Will have to go deeper into implementation myself too to get a clearer
view. RSS 1.0 and RDF are lot more easy to use on the Semantic Web where
objects have URIs corresponding to real URLs, i.e. stable Web resources,
and for collections of resources that may not verify such accessibility
property, that may be a completely different story (and JSON may be
preferable, then ?). Again, I have to test on real code and learn ;)

>  It would be good to get your feedback on another RDF/XML collection
> discussion [2] in Metrics topic. 
> 
> [2] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/MetricsCollectionsInRDFXML

I have added a couple of comments, but I must admit it's not completely
obvious IMHO. Will probably have to think about it more.

Thanks for the pointer.

My 2 cents,
-- 
Olivier BERGER <olivier.berger at it-sudparis.eu>
http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 1024D/6B829EEC
Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)