Hi, Arthur. Thanks for the answers. It clears some things up for me. Arthur Ryman <[email protected]> wrote on 08/22/2011 04:40:25 PM:
> I don't think problems using XPath are a valid reason to encode markup > since RDF/XML itselt is very difficult to process using XPath. At one > point we tried to define an OSLC-variant of RDF/XML that looked like > "normal" XML. However, we abandonned that and now require support for > generic RDF/XML. To make sure I understand: By generic RDF/XML, you are talking about what the spec calls "constrained RDF/XML" in Appendix B, right? [1] > The are many equivalent ways to represent a given set of triples in > RDF/XML. It would therefore be very problematic to use XPath, XSLT, or > XQuery to process RDF/XML. The safe way to process RDF/XML is to use an > RDF toolkit like Jena. This makes sense, and I agree. But for me it also raises a few questions: - Do we need a JSON Compact representation for consumers who don't use an RDF library? This is one of the few resources in OSLC that doesn't have a JSON representation, and it seems natural since so often the consumer here is a web client. - Should we define a "constrained RDF/XML" representation if our recommendation is to use an RDF toolkit anyway? JSON might be a reasonable alternative for those who don't want RDF/XML. Best Regards, Sam [1] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OSLCCoreSpecAppendixRepresentations?sortcol=table;up=#Guidelines_for_application_xml
