Olivier Berger <[email protected]> wrote on 01/11/2010 10:04:39 AM: > > > > Note, when a consumer requests application/rdf+xml on the service > > description URL service provider implementations shouldn't return the > > format specification for the service description document therefore > > consumers should not depend on an RDF-parser for this. > > > > I'm afraid I can't understand this last sentence. Isn't one supposed to > expect XML RDF when asking XML RDF ? ... I'm missing the point. > > Would you care to explain that with another more detailed wording ? > Yes, I did make that sentence quite confusing :)
What I was attempting to say is that in OSLC-CM V 1.0, the service description document is NOT RDF/XML. Therefore, one should not expect to use application/rdf+xml in the Accept: header for the GET request...this would result in a 405, unless of course the service provider had their own non-OSLC-CM version that was RDF/XML valid. Long way of saying, we don't support RDF/XML in service descriptor, even though some RDF/XML attributes exists in its definition. Thanks, Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
