oslc-core message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oslc-core] OSLC & LDP: Query Capabilities, Creation Factories & location of Dialogs
- From: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
- To: "OASIS OSLC Core TC Discussion List" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 08:57:49 -0500
Hi Martin,
Thanks for sharing. This is timely,
as I getting ready to outline this in more detail. I have done some
work internally and on my todo list for this month to publish it out. I'll
comment directly on some of the points you've raised below.
- Steve
> From: Martin P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com>
> To: "OASIS OSLC Core TC Discussion List"
<oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: 12/02/2014 04:55 AM
> Subject: [oslc-core] OSLC & LDP: Query Capabilities,
Creation Factories &
> location of Dialogs
> Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> As we move OSLC 3 to be based on LDP, I presume Query Capabilities
and
> Creation Factories will be replaced by capabilities from LDP.
>
> As I'm starting to draft the Automation v3 spec, I've come to the
place
> where I need to be able to refer to the definition of the headless
query/
> selection and creation capabilities.
I believe we don't need to define much of this in
domain specs, you just need to leverage some basic ways that LDP and Core
expose capabilities and clients can discover it.
> This also raises the question: are we keeping the existing
> oslc:ServiceProvider and oslc:Service resources? I see no reason not
to.
From a pure 3.0 spec perspective, no. I see
no reason to require these.
From a compatibility with 2.0 specs, then yes of course
we'd need to.
>
> So my expectation of how this would go is:
>
> 1. An oslc:ServiceProvider:
>
> a) which is possibly discoverable from
an oslc:ServiceProviderCatalog
> b) would contain one or more oslc:Service
resources
We could just have LDP Containers. Perhaps you could outline the
specific needs of what a oslc:ServiceProvider should have, so a client/server
could satisfy a certain. Typically the needs are that a client needs
to interaction with a set of services that operate on types of resources,
such a container.
> 2. These oslc:Service resources:
>
> a) would each identify which OSLC domain
they operate in using their
> oslc:usage property
>
> i) (I believe
this can also exist at the oslc:ServiceProvider level)
>
> b) Link to LDP containers for each of
the resource types they work with
>
> i) (They may
have more than one container for each resource
> type, e.g.
> Automation
Requests ready for execution, and Automation Request
> templates)
Essentially, you can think of what a "oslc:Service"
(and everything it contains) as an LDP:Container, annotated to provide
the needs we had before (query, dialogs, types, shapes, usage)
> c) Maybe, they would still contain the
links to the Creation & Selection
> dialogs (i.e. in the same place as v2)
Yes
Something like:
<> a ldp:DirectContainer;
oslc:creationDialog <#newDialog>
;
oslc:resourceType auto:AutomationRequest.
<#newDialog> a oslc:Dialog;
oslc:dialog <http://example.org/ui/newDialog>;
dcterms:title "New Automation Request".
> d) (for providers wanting to be compatible
with v2:) would contain v2
> Creation Factories and Query Capabilities
Correct, we should keep the 3.0 specs "pure"
and have a separate "note" on v2 compatibility. Imagine
what the 3.0 spec would look like to someone who knows nothing about v2
or 2 years from now, should they know anything about v2?
There has been some things started and actively being
worked now:
Core 3.0: http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/oslc-core/specs/compat.html
ChangeMgmt 3.0: http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/oslc-ccm/trunk/supporting-docs/change-mgt-compatibility.html
> 3. Those LDP containers:
>
> a) would provide LDP's querying mechanism.
(Is there such a thing? I
> can't find it.) replacing v2's Query Capabilities
No, it is being discussed for LDP "2.0".
We could simply do something like this to advertise v2 query support
on LDP Containers
<> a ldp:DirectContainer ;
oslc:queryType <http://open-services.net/ns/core#OSLCQuerySyntax>.
or something
> b) where appropriate, would provide the
creation capability (replacing
> v2's Creation Factories)
We could call a LDP Container a creation factory,
that is all it is. Though I'm not sure if we need to carry that v2
terminology forward in 3.0.
> c) Maybe, it might be appropriate to link
from the container to the
> creation & selection dialogs for the
resources in that container. So
> (for dialogs that are specific to a single
LDP container - not all will
> be) all the operations for that container
are linked from the container
> itself. However, compatibility with v2
would require that the dialogs
> are linked from the oslc:Service.
Not sure I'm hearing anything I disagree with but
not sure I fully get the point. I think it would be helpful if we worked
an example, side-by-side.
The way to think of it, starting with a Container...build
up from there like I mentioned before: dialogs, query, etc.
> In particular, right now I need to know:
> - Is 3a correct, or will we be keeping Query Capabilities?
For at least 1st half of 2015, I think Query Capability
will remain a thing only on open-services.net. It is there, we can
use it as needed. We'll need to decide what we want to do with this
longer term.
> I think 3c is also an important point to decide
on.
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
> 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]