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

[Dave]

Sounds like we have pretty strong consensus that RDF/XML SHOULD remain
a MUST. Instead of making this change, I have added a couple of
paragraphs (written by Martin) on why we require RDF/XML.

- Dave


On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Arthur Ryman <ryman at ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> Dave and Team,
>
> RDF experts will tell you Turtle is a much better RDF format that RDF/XML
> and they are correct. However, the role of RDF at OSLC is primarily as a
> data model that we keep in the background. We want OSLC services to be
> implemented in a wide variety of technologies and therefore OSLC should
> not require the use of any RDF-specific implementation technologies.
>
> Similarly, a Web UI expert will tell you JSON is a much format for
> resources than XML and they are correct since browsers have built-in
> JavaScript parsers. However, OSLC services are not just for driving Web
> UIs.
>
> Most application developers will tell you that XML is fine as a resource
> format because virtually all programming languages have XML parsers. We
> have therefore provided guidelines for formatting RDF/XML so that it looks
> more or less like vanilla XML.
>
> A main goal of OSLC is collaboration between disparate tools. We can take
> a big step in that direction by nailing down at least one resource format
> that everyone agrees to implements.  The only viable candidate is RDF/XML.
>
> My vote is therefore to keep the status quo, i.e. all OSLC services MUST
> support at least RDF/XML. This reduces implementation expense and promotes
> interoperability.
>
> Regards,
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> Arthur Ryman, PhD, DE
>
>
> Chief Architect, Project and Portfolio Management
>
> IBM Software, Rational
>
> Markham, ON, Canada | Office: 905-413-3077, Cell: 416-939-5063
> Twitter | Facebook | YouTube
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> Dave <snoopdave at gmail.com>
> To:
> oslc-core <oslc-core at open-services.net>
> Date:
> 05/11/2010 10:27 AM
> Subject:
> [oslc-core] Should RDF/XML be MUST?
> 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
>
>
>
>