Dave wrote:
Having a "firm requirement for at least one representation" does help clients, but we are not there today in our implementations. Today, OSLC implementations have and will continue to have for some time limitations in their abilities to provide and accept RDF/XML. Changing to SHOULD acknowledges fact and still points the way forward. The term SHOULD is actually a pretty strong requirement, here's what it means: SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. Dave--for the implmentations that don't provide/accecpt RDF/XML, what's the "valid reason in particular circumstances to ignore" the requirement other than "they don't". "Should" shouldn't mean "you have to do it, unless you don't do it, in which case you don't have to." I second Samit's concern that unless there is a representation used by all providers, a client writing code would then have to write separate code for each provider, which they could do without OSLC by using the native api of the provider. I used to teach a mathematics class for elementary school teachers that was required for graduation. When a second semester senior failed the course (for no good reason other than not studying), I was asked to waive the requirement, because otherwise he couldn't graduate. I didn't, by the way. Andy Berner Lead Architect, ISV Technical Enablement and Strategy IBM Rational Business Development 972 561-6599 [email protected] Ready for IBM Rational software partner program - http://www.ibm.com/isv/rational/readyfor.html
