Re: Caveats for Web-friendly service description

On 6/1/05, Tim Bray <> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2005, at 7:48 AM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> > Can I suggest that a requirement for a service description format
> > ought to allow for both RDF and XML as representation formats?
> Why?  The cost of supporting two completely incompatible
> representation formats is high, so the corresponding benefit would
> have to be high too. -Tim

Leigh said 'allow', not 'support'. The cost of *allowing* non-XPath
oriented formats is likely to be less than that of *supporting* XPath.
On the other hand, there is likely to be a cost to excluding RDF.

If there were a reasonably straightforward way of supporting the same
kind of facilities the XPath approach would offer for other languages,
it might well be worth considering - SQL and SPARQL spring to mind as
possible targets.



Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 18:43:12 UTC