[oslc-core] Should RDF/XML be MUST?

Nick Crossley ncrossley at us.ibm.com
Tue May 11 10:41:51 EDT 2010

Personally, I do not care about RDF, but surely we must have at least one 
common representation for OSLC.  If all domains are completely free to 
mandate their own favored representation, then a cross-domain client is 
put in an almost impossible position of having to deal with a potentially 
large number of different representations.  Imagine a client trying to 
trace down from requirements through CM, SCM, test cases, build automation 
producing software assets, etc., and every one requiring a different 

RDF/XML might not be the ideal way to represent RDF, but it is something 
we seem to have invested quite a lot of time in already.  I believe it is 
essential to have at least one common representation that is required by 
all OSLC domains.


From:   Dave <snoopdave at gmail.com>
To:     oslc-core <oslc-core at open-services.net>
Date:   05/11/2010 07:18 AM
Subject:        [oslc-core] Should RDF/XML be MUST?
Sent by:        oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net

Sorry to raise this old issue again, but I've been getting some new
feedback that the Core spec should not be so prescriptive (or is it
proscriptive) about RDF/XML representation. I captured this feedback
in a new issue on the issues page:

OPEN Consensus among RDF experts seems to be that RDF/XML is not the
best representation for RDF, so why do we mandate it as a MUST in the
Core spec. In reality, most OSLC workgroups will probably make RDF/XML
a MUST, but perhaps we should leave that up to them. Here are two
alternatives: (DaveJohnson, 05/11/2010)
      * Option #1 - say this: OSLC services SHOULD provide RDF/XML
representations for all resources and MAY provide Turtle, JSON or Atom
      * Option #2 - say this: OSLC services SHOULD provide an RDF
serialization, either RDF/XML or Turtle, and MAY provide JSON or Atom
      * *Response* pending... (DaveJohnson 05/11/2010)

As always, feedback, comments, etc. are most welcome.


"that prescribes; giving directions or injunctions"

"outlawry, interdiction, or prohibition"

Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/attachments/20100511/e3dc01b0/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Oslc-Core mailing list