[oslc-core] Meeting notes and using rdf:RDF as root element

[Tack Tong]

"This shouldn't change anything for provider implementations, but
XML-only consumers will need to know to ask for application/xml"

This is not quite true.



There was only one format of RDF/XML in Core and it was a MUST. Thus, a
consumer can rely on a single common format that every provider would
implement. This is important for generic consumers who need to talk to
multiple providers.



Now, with two formats of RDF/XML, the Core spec. seems to infer that it is
up to the Provider to choose which one or both to implement. (At least,
that is how I interpret the spec. as I read it.) If this is the case, the
only one single format that a consumer can rely on talking to multiple
providers would be the FULL RDF/XML. And this requires the consumers to do
RDF parsing, and precludes XML consumers.



Should we make abbreivated RDF/XML a MUST or at least a SHOULD, so that a
generic consumer have a single common format to deal with and it does not
preclude XML consumers.



Tack Tong
IBM Rational software
tacktong at ca.ibm.com
905-413-3232
tie line 313-3232


For those catching up: the basic idea is this: OSLC specs can allow
either abbreviated RDF/XML, full RTDF/XML or both forms and use
content-negotiation to determine what is returned. This will allow
specs to require abbreviated RDF/XML now and later add full RDF/XML
without breaking clients. The new spec text describes these three
options, how content negotiation works and how to do abbreviated
RDF/XML with Jena.

This shouldn't change anything for provider implementations, but
XML-only consumers will need to know to ask for application/xml or
risk breakage later.

As always feedback is most welcome.

Thanks,
- Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/attachments/20100713/95790777/attachment-0003.html>