Olivier, I agree that triples, etc. should be used to clarify the spec for implementers. In fact I did just that in a document that describes the semantics of the simple query syntax. [1] I also described the translation of the query parameters into SPARQL [2].
[1] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcSimpleQuerySemanticsV1 [2] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcSimpleQuerySparqlV1 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: Olivier Berger <[email protected]> To: oslc-core <[email protected]> Date: 05/12/2010 05:08 AM Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Should RDF/XML be MUST? Sent by: [email protected] Hi. Le mardi 11 mai 2010 à 10:18 -0400, Dave a écrit : > 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. SNIP IMHO, RDF/XML should be a MUST for *implementations*, but for specs readability by *implementors* (me, you, may grand-ma ;), Turtle or likes (diagrams ;) may help capturing the semantics and the logic of the standard. Just in case this wasn't clear in my earlier suggestion in another thread. Best regards, -- Olivier BERGER <[email protected]> http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France) _______________________________________________ Oslc-Core mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
