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 <[email protected]> To: oslc-core <[email protected]> Date: 05/11/2010 10:27 AM Subject: [oslc-core] Should RDF/XML be MUST? Sent by: [email protected] 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 [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
