The applicability document says that getMetadata should return RDF. Because getMetadata returns XML, the applicability document is implicitly requiring a specific mapping from RDF to XML. I wonder whether the serialization of RDF as XML is an accepted standard, or whether the requirement for RDF needs clarification.

Possibly the applicability document should explicitly refer to appropriate schemas and/or namespaces. For example, the XML documents produced by my LSID getMetadata services start with an rdf:RDF tag that specifies a variety of namespaces. Those namespaces, plus some implicit XML schema, constrain the serialization of the RDF triples.

Sample list of namespaces:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:daml="http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil#" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"

Please comment on whether the applicability document requires additional detail to specify the XML representation of RDF documents that are produced by getMetadata.

Greg

--
Greg Riccardi
Professor of the College of Information <riccardi@ci.fsu.edu>
Florida State University 850-644-2869
Tallahassee, FL 32306-2100 http://www.ci.fsu.edu/riccardi