oslc-core message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oslc-core] version management of OSLC specifications
- From: Ian Green1 <ian.green@uk.ibm.com>
- To: Axel Reichwein <axel.reichwein@koneksys.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:55:35 +0000
Hello Axel
Putting aside the versioning aspect,
have you considered the meaning of more than one oslc:instanceShape? The
current OSLC Core V2 based specs require that a resource has at most one
oslc:instanceShape; the meaning of two or more hasn't been defined. The
Resource Shape member submission might be the place to approach this topic.
It might be that this question
can't be sensibly answered without assuming/requiring a relation between
the instanceShapes (e.g., versioning, extension etc.)
best wishes,
-ian
ian.green@uk.ibm.com (Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB)
IBM Rational
<oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 03/12/2013
19:36:27:
> From: Axel Reichwein <axel.reichwein@koneksys.com>
> To: oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org,
> Cc: parham vasaiely <parham.vasaiely@eads.com>,
James Conallen
> <jconallen@us.ibm.com>
> Date: 03/12/2013 19:37
> Subject: [oslc-core] version management of OSLC
specifications
> Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> Hello OSLC Core,
>
> I have a technical question concerning the version management of
> OSLC specifications. In the OMG OSLC4MBSE working group, which I co-
> chair, we are currently implementing a mapping from SysML into OSLC
> resource shapes. As multiple versions of SysML (1.3, 1.4, etc...)
> exist, we are facing a problem with dealing with multiple versions
> of corresponding OSLC Resource shapes.
>
> Typically, an RDF resource description includes a reference to a
> resource type URI (e.g. the OSLC resource shape URI). Since the
> semantics and constraints imposed on SysML elements can vary from
> version to version, we think that we need to include in the resource
> description of a SysML element a reference to the version-specific
> resource type URI (e.g. http://www.omg.org/sysml/block/1.3)
. On the
> other hand, we also think that it is necessary to have a generic
> resource type URI (e.g. http://www.omg.org/sysml/block)
which
> identifies the concept independent of any specific version since
> there will be web clients which are not interested in knowing the
> specific version of a resource type. Our current idea is to include
> in the resource description of a SysML element a reference to the
> generic resource type URI as well as the version-specific resource
> type URI. This would allow web clients to very easily know the
> version-specific type URI as well as the generic type URI.
>
> As we are interested in adopting an approach which is aligned with
> other OSLC specifications, I would like to know your perspective on
> this issue. I have cc'ed Parham Vasaiely from Airbus and James
> Conallen from IBM who have participated in our OSLC4MBSE
> discussions. They may reformulate our approach if I haven't
> expressed the concern clearly enough.
>
> Best regards,
> Axel
> --
> Axel Reichwein, PhD
> CEO | Koneksys
> -------------------------------------------
> Web: www.koneksys.com
> Twitter: @AxelReichwein
> Phone: +1 404 549 8100
> Email: axel.reichwein@koneksys.com
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]