Jim
It makes sense then to link to this link-guidance (https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/svn/oslc-core/trunk/supporting-docs/link-guidance.html)
from in part1 (https://rawgit.com/oasis-tcs/oslc-domains/master/rm/requirements-management-spec.html#labels
?
regards
______________________________
Jad El-khoury,
PhD
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Mechatronics Division
Brinellvägen 83, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: +46(0)8 790 6877 Mobile: +46(0)70 773 93 45
jad@kth.se,
www.kth.se
From: Jim Amsden [mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 20 March 2018 18:17
To: Jad El-Khoury <jad@kth.se>
Cc: Sarabura, Martin <msarabura@ptc.com>; Nicholas Crossley <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>; oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [oslc-domains] Reified relationships in RM domain
Jad,
This is documented in link-guidance:
https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/svn/oslc-core/trunk/supporting-docs/link-guidance.htmlreferenced
in OSLC core 3.0.
Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
919-525-6575
From: Jad El-Khoury <jad@kth.se>
To: "Sarabura, Martin" <msarabura@ptc.com>, Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>,
Nicholas Crossley <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org" <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 03/20/2018 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: [oslc-domains] Reified relationships in RM domain
Sent by: <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi
I found this text odd, because these properties are dcterms properties, and are not “defined by this specification” as it is claimed.
so, they should not be part of Part2.
I think the concept as discussed in part1 (https://rawgit.com/oasis-tcs/oslc-domains/master/rm/requirements-management-spec.html#labels)
is probably sufficient. Note also that this text of part1 is the same as for CM – since the same idea applies to all domains.
regards
/Jad
From:
oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Sarabura, Martin
Sent: den 20 mars 2018 03:07
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>; Nicholas Crossley <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>
Cc: oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [oslc-domains] Reified relationships in RM domain
Yes let’s not throw it all out. The relationship may have its own properties that are not downloaded from the object. Created by could refer to the person who created the relationship, right? Not
sure how useful that one is but I know of at least one PTC attribute that we would want to attach to the relationship. It doesn’t belong to the object and isn’t a property of the subject itself, it’s a property of the relationship.
So I’m in favor of retaining the concept and documenting it, but I suppose my other concerns re v2 compatibility are not so critical.
Regards, Martin
From:
oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org[mailto:oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Jim Amsden
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 3:02 PM
To: Nicholas Crossley <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Sarabura, Martin <msarabura@ptc.com>;
oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [oslc-domains] Reified relationships in RM domain
Although there are likely tools that are expecting this behavior and may not work properly without it.
Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
919-525-6575
From: "Nicholas Crossley" <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>
To: "Sarabura, Martin" <msarabura@ptc.com>
Cc: "oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org" <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 03/19/2018 02:30 PM
Subject: Re: [oslc-domains] Reified relationships in RM domain
Sent by: <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Martin,
You are right in that the canonical example was the title. That is, when creating a link from a requirement to something else, the client could supply reified statements that included the title of the target resource - or the server could fill that in by default
for future readers of the requirement. This could be useful when displaying lists of links, including in cases where the target resource was on a server not currently reachable.
However, subsequent thinking and discussion led the committee to realize that having the title, or any other property, copied into these reified statement could lead to security holes - the person reading the requirement might not have read access to the target
resource. The title could contain classified names or other words, and similarly for other properties.
We came to feel that such reified statements were unnecessary duplication of data, and should be avoided in most cases.
Nick.
From: "Sarabura, Martin" <msarabura@ptc.com>
To: "oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org" <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 03/19/2018 09:22 AM
Subject: [oslc-domains] Reified relationships in RM domain
Sent by: <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi all, the previous version of the RM spec http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2#RM_Relationship_Propertiessays
this:
RM providers MUST accept relationship properties, as described in OSLC Core Link Guidance. The following relationship properties are defined by this specification: …
Then the spec lists 5 properties, all with minimum cardinality 0 and therefore optional.
An equivalent statement does not appear in the new spec though the concept is discussed in this section
https://rawgit.com/oasis-tcs/oslc-domains/master/rm/requirements-management-spec.html#labels
Since all properties listed in the old spec are optional it’s reasonable that they are not explicitly included in the new spec. But why not include at least some examples in the non-normative guidance?
There is one word in the v2 spec above that seems confusing to me: accept. This suggests that there must be a method for the client to specify the value of a property. Do we want the client to be able to specify properties on the relationship? If so,
then how would that be done? Of the examples given, only one might make sense – the dcterms:title. All the others could be assigned automatically by the server though it’s not clear to me how the server could assign multiple creators if only the currently
logged in person is creating the relationship. Anyway, maybe this is just a v2 issue but I’d like to clarify if possible.
Thanks, Martin