[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: OSLC RM Domain specs
I raised the issue of RM 2.0 compatibility with OSLCCore3.0, and here’s an example (I think I earlier found another example, but let’s first test if I understood compatibility correct):
OSLC Core 3.0, states that OSLC Services MUST provide and accept text/turtle
RM 2.0 only requires MUST for RDF/XML representations.
Now, if we state that RM 2.0 specification is based on OSLCCore3.0, does that not create a backward compatibility issues for RM2.0? Existing RM 2.0 implementations have not necessarily supported turtle.
Also, note that I have also just committed some new changes to the RM Specs.
I earlier called the specs 3.0, but now I understand we should stick to 2.0. So, I now renamed it 2.0.
This also meant I have reverted changes to the following sections to be almost the same text as that under open-services:
* 2.2 Specification Versioning
* Appendix A. Version Compatibility with 2.0 Specifications
Jad El-khoury, PhD
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Mechatronics Division
Brinellvägen 83, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: +46(0)8 790 6877 Mobile: +46(0)70 773 93 45