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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 > > > >
