[OASIS Issue Tracker] (OSLCCORE-35) v2 Resource Shape vocab: oslc:Inline incorrectly mentions blank nodes

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

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-35?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=60895#comment-60895 ] 

Martin Pain commented on OSLCCORE-35:
-------------------------------------

I have raised OSLCCORE-37 for the issue of deprecating LocalResource.

I believe this ticket is now complete, as oslc:Inline has been changed and oslc:LocalResource has been either reverted to its original text or changed to match the Member Submission to W3C. (I don't have time right now to check which of these it was, so stating it here so we can make sure we're on the same page)

> v2 Resource Shape vocab: oslc:Inline incorrectly mentions blank nodes
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OSLCCORE-35
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-35
>             Project: OASIS OSLC Lifecycle Integration Core (OSLC Core) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Martin Pain
>            Assignee: James Amsden
>
> In the v2 vocabulary (we don't version the vocabulary, so we're not removing anything), the oslc:Inline resource (used as a value for an oslc:representation property) says:
> "An inline (RDF blank node) representation."
> I believe this is wrong, as oslc:Inline is used with oslc:Resource, which says "Resource: value is a resource at a specified URI (i.e. a URI Reference)." A value cannot be both a URI Reference and a blank node.
> The member submission of Resource Shapes to the W3C describes oslc:Inline differently, and I believe that this description correctly matches the intention: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2014/SUBM-shapes-20140211/#representation "oslc:Inline: The representation of the object resource MUST be present in the representation of the described resource."
> I suggest we change the description of oslc:Inline in the vocab to match the one from the member submission.
> This issue would probably be more correctly addressed by the v2 "maintenance mode" working group at open-services.net, but as there has been no activity there for a long time, and as we are modifying the vocab for v3 as part of this TC's work, I'm raising it here.
> (The description of oslc:Resource [the alternative to oslc:Inline] in the v2 vocab file also makes no sense: "A URI Reference representation to a resource", but I'm also not sure about the one in the member submission either: "The representaton of the object resource MUST NOT be present in the representation of the described resource." - I interpreted it more as "the representation of the object resource MUST be available by performing a GET on the object URI, irrespective of whether it is also inlined in the subject's representation". The member submission's interpretation might be more appropriate when describing the allowed body of a POST, whereas mine might make more sense when describing what gets returned from a GET.)



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