[oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup

[Steve K Speicher]

One thing I was going to point out, that the only representation supported 
is XML for Compact (not RDF/XML or JSON).

"The Compact representation MUST be in the XML format described in this 
document" 

I've queued this discussion as an issue to be discussed in Core WG

Thanks,
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645


oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net wrote on 08/23/2011 11:11:38 AM:

> From: Samuel Padgett/Durham/IBM at IBMUS
> To: Arthur Ryman <ryman at ca.ibm.com>, 
> Cc: Adam Archer <agarcher at ca.ibm.com>, "oslc-core at open-services.net" 
<oslc-
> core at open-services.net>, Randy Hudson/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS, oslc-core-
> bounces at open-services.net
> Date: 08/23/2011 11:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Compact representation, titles with markup
> Sent by: oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> 
> Hi, Arthur. Thanks for the answers. It clears some things up for me.
> 
> Arthur Ryman <ryman at ca.ibm.com> wrote on 08/22/2011 04:40:25 PM:
> 
> > I don't think problems using XPath are a valid reason to encode markup
> > since RDF/XML itselt is very difficult to process using XPath. At one
> > point we tried to define an OSLC-variant of RDF/XML that looked like
> > "normal" XML. However, we abandonned that and now require support for
> > generic RDF/XML.
> 
> To make sure I understand: By generic RDF/XML, you are talking about 
what
> the spec calls "constrained RDF/XML" in Appendix B, right? [1]
> 
> > The are many equivalent ways to represent a given set of triples in
> > RDF/XML. It would therefore be very problematic to use XPath, XSLT, or
> > XQuery to process RDF/XML. The safe way to process RDF/XML is to use 
an
> > RDF toolkit like Jena.
> 
> This makes sense, and I agree. But for me it also raises a few 
questions:
> 
> - Do we need a JSON Compact representation for consumers who don't use 
an
> RDF library? This is one of the few resources in OSLC that doesn't have 
a
> JSON representation, and it seems natural since so often the consumer 
here
> is a web client.
> 
> - Should we define a "constrained RDF/XML" representation if our
> recommendation is to use an RDF toolkit anyway? JSON might be a 
reasonable
> alternative for those who don't want RDF/XML.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Sam
> 
> [1]
> 
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OSLCCoreSpecAppendixRepresentations?

> sortcol=table;up=#Guidelines_for_application_xml
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Core mailing list
> Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net