John, Since we've gone down the JSON-LD road for UI preview, I would expect in 3.0 to make the dialog results also compact JSON-LD. Then there's no ambiguity since it's now RDF?
We could add a statement explicitly stating providers MAY add additional content and consumers MUST ignore unknown content as well. -- Samuel Padgett | IBM Rational | [email protected] Eclipse Lyo: Enabling tool integration with OSLC From: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS To: [email protected] Date: 11/13/2013 11:51 AM Subject: [oslc-core] Delegated dialog oslc:results ambiguity Sent by: "Oslc-Core" <[email protected]> Someone sent me this. Seems like it would be a good candidate for the 3.0 issue list. I think we need to be clear on this since the existing "clients must ignore" language is IIRC RDF-centric and this is not an RDF context. I am reading the OSLC Core Spec Version 2.0 http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreSpecification One section I am particularly intrested in is the Resource Selection Name: results URI: http://open-services.net/ns/core#results There is texts that states An example Resource Selection response: { "oslc:results" : [{ "oslc:label": "Bug 123: Server crash", "rdf:resource": "http://example.com/bug123"; ( http://example.com/bug123%27) }, { "oslc:label": "Bug 456: Client hangs on startup", "rdf:resource": "http://example.com/bug456"; ( http://example.com/bug456%27) } ] } So my question is does the actually results have to look like this example ? Basically I am getting extra information such as rdf:type which is generated automatically Arwe: generically I would expect the global "clients must ignore unrecognized content" 'clause' would make that ok, but let me read this context since it's not RDF Other: yes, just trying to get my head around alot of it - getting problems with generating the JSON as in the spec, one of them was the rdf:type just kept appearing, but I beleive we are using OSLC4J version 1.1 - not sure if version 2.0 would generate as per specification. Arwe: while it would not "hold up in court", I'm sure the intent is the same as if this was rdf - ignore what you don't recognize on the client side. ... this json is not rdf, despite its appearance. I will queue this up for clarification in 3.0 though. ...FYI, you should still fix it over time. The danger you're exposed to long term is that the extra info Might someday in the future get assigned a meaning in this context that conflicts with what your intent is. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario _______________________________________________ Oslc-Core mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
