Re: [oslc-core] Motivation and proposal for oslc:archive property

[Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>]

Hey Samit,

I would think it would make sense, I
assume you do if you are asking the questions.  So the guidance you
are suggesting is something along the lines of: by default, archived resources
are excluded...a client would have to explicitly request them.  I
guess this would be implied in dialogs as well but might be good to be
explicit.  I could expect the dialogs (and other scenarios) to be
heavily dependent on the context that they are being used: for example
if there is an archived resource selection dialog...you would expect to
see only the archived resources.

Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> http://open-services.net



From:      
 Samit Mehta/San Francisco/IBM@IBMUS
To:      
 Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:      
 "OASIS OSLC Core
TC Discussion List" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>, oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:      
 10/02/2014 01:09 PM
Subject:    
   Re: [oslc-core]
Motivation and proposal for oslc:archive property
Sent by:    
   <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Would it also make sense to add some
guidance for service providers on whether to exclude / include archived"
resources in search, query and other services?  I would guess that
majority of scenarios would expect that the "archived" resources
are automatically excluded from certain services - e.g. Delegated UI for
selection. 

Sincerely, 
___________________________________________________________________________
Samit Mehta
IBM Rational Software 





From:        Steve
K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 
To:        "OASIS
OSLC Core TC Discussion List" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        10/01/2014
08:01 AM 
Subject:        [oslc-core]
Motivation and proposal for oslc:archive property 
Sent by:        <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Motivation: 
In typical lifecycle management tools, resources are rarely deleted.  They
instead are marked with such a state as not longer being "active"
or "available", some refer to this state as being "archived".
 By having a uniform way to express whether a resource is in this
state or not, allows for a consistent way to build queries and solutions
that federate information from various tools.

Proposal: 
The term for being archived would be

      http://open-services.net/ns/core#archived

and it would take a boolean value. If this property is absent then the
resource is not archived. 

This has a semantically different meaning than existing oslc:hidden [1],
which indicates a hint as to whether the resource or property should be
included in a UI.  oslc:archived would be used to express the state
of a resource, an application may or may not decide to hide these in the
UI. 

Timeframe: 
I suggest this be included in Core 3 common vocabulary.

[1]: http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OSLCCoreSpecAppendixA#oslc_ResourceShape_Resource

Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> http://open-services.net