[oslc-core] Comments on draft core spec.

[Ian Green1]

Here are some more comments David

thanks
-ian



Overall comments:
        - Need guidance on WHEN oslc 1.0 specs should migrate (already an 
issue on HOW).
        - I don't see the need to introduce new terminology around  OSLC 
Defined Resource (defined properties, in-line resource, resource link) 
etc.  The RDF terminology is unambiguous, well-established and 
standardized.

OSLC Defined resources
        - no XMLLiteral for typed RDF literals.
        - are literals such as date, string, integer, to be typed or 
untyped literals (XMLLiterals are typed, of course).
        - the example in the appendix is not well-formed RDF/XML
        - this model distinguishes between "in-line" resource and 
"resource link".  What is the rationale for this distinction?
        - I don't see why "in-line" resources need to be RDF blank nodes. 
What's the rationale for this?
        - why is "Occurs" a literal - why not a URI?
        - can an OSLC Defined resource have more than one RDF Type URI?
        - can markup appear in String literals, and if so, how are 
namespaces etc declared?  XMLLiteral needed for this?

Common Properties
        - what;s the difference between zero-or-one and at-most-one
        -rdf:type must be a URI Reference, not a literal.  It cannot be 
QName, it must be a URI Reference
        - preserving unknown content is too coarse.  I think providers 
need more control. Some properties will be tolerated, others will not.
        - Nothing in the REQUIRED foaf properties identifies a user 
uniquely.  I suggest a URI for the user.

RDF/XML Representation
        - One reading of "Returned when these content types requested: 
application/rdf+xml " is that the client MUST ask for such a media-type in 
order to obtain RDF/XML.  Normal http content negotiation should prevail 
here.  The core spec. should state that providers MUST support 
application/rdf+xml.
        - the representation of a "resource link" should use rdf:resource, 
not rdf:about.
        - in-lined resources are not described properly: there is no 
intervening RDF property
        - the case for "If the resource is a Query Resource " does not 
result in well-formed RDF/XML.  The example OSLC Query Resource is not 
well-formed.






Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU