[OASIS Issue Tracker] (OSLCCORE-23) Should a ServiceProviderCatalog or ServiceProvider resource be an LDPC?

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-23?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=60455#comment-60455 ] 

Martin Pain commented on OSLCCORE-23:
-------------------------------------

If we're thinking about deprecating SPCs/SPs/Service resources in future, then I would expect that it's all the more important that we introduce its replacement now - and the best option available now seems to be nested LDPCs, and we have no reason to believe that will change given that it is a W3C retrospective (although there's always the chance that it might).

But if we want to deprecate it in future, we want the standardised replacement to already have been implemented by OSLC implementations - so we're in a better position than we are now.

> Should a ServiceProviderCatalog or ServiceProvider resource be an LDPC?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OSLCCORE-23
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-23
>             Project: OASIS OSLC Lifecycle Integration Core (OSLC Core) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: James Amsden
>            Assignee: James Amsden
>
> OSLC 2.0/3.0 compatibility re-introduces the OSLC Core 2.0 ServiceProviderCatalog (SPC), ServiceProvider (SP) and Service resources. These resources provide a somewhat static, up-front discovery capability to access information about OSLC resources and capabilities supported by a server.
> OSLC Core 3.0 also utilizes Link headers in response to OPTIONS or HEAD request on LDPCs to dynamically discover information about OSLC resources and capabilities supported through that LDPC. 
> Although these are somewhat overlapping approaches to discovery, they are both useful in practice and can be complimentary, balancing the convenience of up-front static discovery by parsing a few resources, and more dynamic, flexible discovery through introspection of LDPCs. In any case, the OSLC Core 2.0 discovery approach is required for compatibility.
> There may be a way to normalize these by requiring that ServiceProviderCatalog, ServiceProvider and Service resources are also LDPCs. This may allow server implementations to dynamically generate the service provider resources from the LDPC and may simplify the server implementation of OSLC Discovery, and eliminate data redundancy.
> However, there's a potential problem with 2.0 SPC and SP's being LDPCs. A GET on an LDPC must also return the contents of the container in the ldp:contains property of the RDFSource resource response body. That may be a large amount of data for any given LDPC that would be inappropriate for SPC discovery. LDP supports the use of the Prefer request header to allow the client to give the server a hint on what content is desired in the response, and possibly the omit-parameter with ldp#PrefereContainment could be used to get the LDPC without any of its content element URIs. However, an OSLC 2.0 client would not know anything about these headers.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)