[oslc-core] Should RDF/XML be MUST?

[Ian Green1]

Hi Dave,

I think that there should be at least one REQUIRED RDF serialization that 
is common to all OSLC specs.  We want there to be at least one 
representation that consumers can rely upon.  Each time we weaken the 
provider's obligations we ask more of consumers and i think this will a 
hurdle to adoption.  Having more than one REQUIRED representation is fine 
if it can be done with low (constant) additional cost.  Ideally, an OSLC 
SDK would offer the REQUIRED serializations.

There are issues with RDF/XML but there are advantages too.  I don't see 
that other representations are significantly "better" (perhaps with the 
exception of Turtle). Also, RDF/XML is one of the recommended Foundation 
resource representations and is currently centre stage there.  From a 
Rational perspective we have invested in RDF/XML.

We mandate it in our specs. because we think it is best for the OSLC 
initiative.

best wishes,
    -ian

ian.green at uk.ibm.com (Ian Green1/UK/IBM at IBMGB)
Chief Software Architect, Requirements Definition and Management
IBM Rational

oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net wrote on 11/05/2010 15:18:12:

> [image removed] 
> 
> [oslc-core] Should RDF/XML be MUST?
> 
> Dave 
> 
> to:
> 
> oslc-core
> 
> 11/05/2010 15:18
> 
> Sent by:
> 
> oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> 
> Sorry to raise this old issue again, but I've been getting some new
> feedback that the Core spec should not be so prescriptive (or is it
> proscriptive) about RDF/XML representation. I captured this feedback
> in a new issue on the issues page:
> 
> OPEN Consensus among RDF experts seems to be that RDF/XML is not the
> best representation for RDF, so why do we mandate it as a MUST in the
> Core spec. In reality, most OSLC workgroups will probably make RDF/XML
> a MUST, but perhaps we should leave that up to them. Here are two
> alternatives: (DaveJohnson, 05/11/2010)
>       * Option #1 - say this: OSLC services SHOULD provide RDF/XML
> representations for all resources and MAY provide Turtle, JSON or Atom
> representations.
>       * Option #2 - say this: OSLC services SHOULD provide an RDF
> serialization, either RDF/XML or Turtle, and MAY provide JSON or Atom
> representations.
>       * *Response* pending... (DaveJohnson 05/11/2010)
> 
> As always, feedback, comments, etc. are most welcome.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave
> 
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prescriptive
> "that prescribes; giving directions or injunctions"
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proscriptive
> "outlawry, interdiction, or prohibition"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Core mailing list
> Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net






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