[oslc-core] "One last" change to OSLC Core representations

[Andrew J Berner]

Dave wrote:


Having a "firm requirement for at least one representation" does help
clients, but we are not there today in our implementations. Today,
OSLC implementations have and will continue to have for some time
limitations in their abilities to provide and accept RDF/XML. Changing
to SHOULD acknowledges fact and still points the way forward.

The term SHOULD is actually a pretty strong requirement, here's what it
means:

SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.


Dave--for the implmentations that don't provide/accecpt RDF/XML, what's the
"valid reason in particular circumstances to ignore" the requirement other
than "they don't".  "Should" shouldn't mean "you have to do it, unless you
don't do it, in which case you don't have to."

I second Samit's concern that unless there is a representation used by all
providers, a client writing code would then have to write separate code for
each provider, which they could do without OSLC by using the native api of
the provider.

I used to teach a mathematics class for elementary school teachers that was
required for graduation.  When a second semester senior failed the course
(for no good reason other than not studying), I was asked to waive the
requirement, because otherwise he couldn't graduate.  I didn't, by the way.


Andy Berner
Lead Architect, ISV Technical Enablement and Strategy
IBM Rational Business Development
972 561-6599
ajberner at us.ibm.com

Ready for IBM Rational software partner program -
http://www.ibm.com/isv/rational/readyfor.html