Unfortunately, I don't think we can offer much guidance to client developers who have no RDF toolkit, except to refer to the RDF/XML specification.
We don't want client developers to hard-code one style of RDF/XML, they have to be able to handle any form, e.g. both type encoded in element name and type encoded as rdf:type. - Dave On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Tack Tong <[email protected]> wrote: > Dave, > > I won't be able to attend the WG tomorrow. Here is my feedback. > > The following focuses for the PROVIDER. > *Create a new OSLC Core Representation Guidance document that tells > people: use an RDF toolkit to generate your representations and if you > don't have a toolkit, then here are some step-by-step instructions for > going from OSLC defined resources to valid RDF/XML, JSON and Atom > representations.* > > Would you also create a Guidance doc. for the CONSUMER who does not have a > RDF parser, or a CONSUMER MUST have a RDF parser? > > > > Tack Tong > IBM Rational software > [email protected] > 905-413-3232 > tie line 313-3232 > > [image: Inactive hide details for oslc-core-request---07/20/2010 10:06:49 > AM---Send Oslc-Core mailing list submissions to > oslc-core@op]oslc-core-request---07/20/2010 > 10:06:49 AM---Send Oslc-Core mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > > From: > [email protected] > To: > [email protected] > Date: > 07/20/2010 10:06 AM > Subject: > Oslc-Core Digest, Vol 6, Issue 14 > Sent by: > [email protected] > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:12:46 -0400 > From: Dave <[email protected]> > To: oslc-core <[email protected]> > Subject: [oslc-core] OSLC representations change proposal > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Following the discussion at the OSLC Core workgroup meeting last week, > I've been thinking about how the core should best handle statements > about representation formats. Up until now, we've been requiring > RDF/XML and specifying a specific constrained form of RDF/XML. > Additionally, we stated that other representation formats may be > supported or required by domain specs and product implementations. > Some of the reasons we did that were to stay in-line with existing > OSLC implementations, to make the RDF/XML more consistent and easier > to handle with XML tools and to give guidance to those attempting to > generate RDF/XML without the benefit of an RDF toolkit. > > Several people suggested that it was unwise to put constraints on > what was is deemed a valid RDF/XML format and attempt to specify an > RDF/XML subset, essentially a new format that will require much better > specifications, conformance tests, etc. Instead, they argue that we > should stick with plain-old RDF/XML, recognizing that particular > implementations may have temporary constraints that will be worked out > as they improve their RDF infrastructure over time. > > I agree with those suggestions and have a proposal to mandate RDF/XML > and allow other formats, but remove any suggestion to offer a subset > of RDF/XML from the Core spec entirely. Here's a summary of the > changes I propose: > > 1) Change the OSLC Core spec to say: > > OSLC services MUST provide RDF/XML and MAY provide other formats such > as Turtle and JSON. OSLC clients can not assume any specific subset or > form of RDF/XML, such as Abbreviated RDF/XML. > > For HTTP POST and PUT operations, OSLC services SHOULD accept RDF/XML > content and MAY accept other representations. OSLC domain > specifications should specify which formats are required and which, if > any, are optional. > > 2) We remove the step-by-step instructions for generating RDF/XML, > JSON and Atom from the Core spec because they are not well specified > or widely implemented enough to be in the final OSLC Core > specification. > > 3) There is no longer a need for a separate section for each > representation format that we allow so remove those sections. Replace > them with some text at the start of the OSLC Representations section > and mention only RDF/XML, Turtle and JSON. > > 4) Create a new OSLC Core Representation Guidance document that tells > people: use an RDF toolkit to generate your representations and if you > don't have a toolkit, then here are some step-by-step instructions for > going from OSLC defined resources to valid RDF/XML, JSON and Atom > representations. > > > I'd like to discuss this at tomorrow's workgroup meeting so please > review, and if you have time give some feedback. > > Thanks, > Dave > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net > > > End of Oslc-Core Digest, Vol 6, Issue 14 > **************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net > >
