Andy/Samit, I think the current wording is OK because the specifications that OSLC is publishing are open and voluntary. People will adopt them because they find it beneficial to do so, not because OSLC enforces compliance, or even certifies compliance. For any given specification, the service providers will provide the formats that they believe will reach the largest audience. This will attract a set of clients to support those formats. This in turn will motivate new service providers to support those formats so they can work with those clients. That is how standards become widely adopted.
Today it appears that RDF/XML has the greatest uptake. Therefore, service providers will support it. However, we know that there are arguably better formats for RDF, e.g. Turtle, and those may become popular in the future. I remember when XML was the preferred format for sending data to Web browsers. Then JSON took over that role. Maybe a future wave of Web browsers will have native Turtle support and RDF graphs will be included in the DOM. If OSLC service providers support RDF/XML, then it will become the de facto standard. Today, not all implementations will use RDF toolkits. I expect services to upgrade to RDF toolkits in future releases, in which case they will be able to easily generate any RDF format. Maybe a standard for RDF/JSON will appear. Then browsers will be able to indicate their preferences and get potential performance improvements from services that support multiple RDF formats. So in practice, RDF/XML will be the lingua franca, but better formats could take over in the future. 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: Andrew J Berner <[email protected]> To: Dave <[email protected]> Cc: oslc-core <[email protected]> Date: 07/26/2010 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [oslc-core] "One last" change to OSLC Core representations Sent by: [email protected] 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 _______________________________________________ Oslc-Core mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
