oslc-domains message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oslc-domains] OSLC RM Domain specs
- From: "Nicholas Crossley" <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>
- To: Jad El-Khoury <jad@kth.se>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:24:48 -0600
We discussed this before in the context
of Core 3.0, or parts thereof.
The thinking was this:- We do want new implementations
to support Turtle, so we want to make that a MUST.
- We would like to move away from
RDF/XML because it's really difficult to read, and because we don't want
to burden new implementations with unnecessary representations, so we make
that optional.
- Servers that feel compatibility
with OSLC 2.0 is important are welcome to provide RDF/XML - the standard
allows it.
So technically yes, it's an incompatible
change - but that incompatibility is the choice of the server, so we felt
it was OK.
For version numbering, we can't call
it 2.0, because there are some differences. I thought we had agreed on
2.1 or 2.0.1 or something?
Nick.
From:
Jad El-Khoury <jad@kth.se>
To:
Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>,
"Schulte, Mark D" <mark.d.schulte@boeing.com>, "oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org"
<oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:
11/15/2017 03:36 AM
Subject:
[oslc-domains]
OSLC RM Domain specs
Sent by:
<oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi,
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
http://docs.oasis-open.org/oslc-core/oslc-core/v3.0/cs01/part1-overview/oslc-core-v3.0-cs01-part1-overview.html#resourceRepresentations
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
regards
______________________________
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
jad@kth.se,
www.kth.se
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]