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"
