Re: [oslc-promcode] Difference between Vocabulary and ResourceShape description

[Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>]

Kaz,

For the vocabulary, you can give the most general rdfs:range for 
promcode:collects, which is promcode:ManagedItem.

For the resource shapes, each collection type has a different shape, and 
in that shape you can give the most specific oslc:range. e.g. the shape 
for promcode:IssueCollection should describe the property 
promcode:collects as having the oslc:range as promcode:Issue.

Concerning ReSpec, I need to understand what Steve has done. I'll respond 
to you after I do that.
_________________________________________________________
Arthur Ryman, PhD
Distinguished Engineer | Master Inventor | Academy of Technology
Chief Data Officer, Application Platform
IBM Systems | Middleware
905.413.3077 (phone) | 416.939.5063 (cell)
IBM InterConnect 2015




From:   Kazuhiro Funakoshi <k-f@bk.jp.nec.com>
To:     "oslc-promcode@lists.oasis-open.org" 
<oslc-promcode@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:   02/05/2015 09:37 PM
Subject:        [oslc-promcode] Difference between Vocabulary and 
ResourceShape description
Sent by:        <oslc-promcode@lists.oasis-open.org>



Hi members especially Arthur,

I found that unifying descriptions in vocabulary and resource shape has 
some problems.

As we discussed we have promcode:collects for 3 different use case:
- ManagedItemCollection → ManagedItem
- IssueCollection → Issue
- (new) RiskCollection → Risk
Hereby we cannot state its range as “any combination of ManagedItem”.

What about:
- For resource shape description, we only state relationship between 
resources
- For vocabulary description, we state these

Another problem is technical, I’ve found using ReSpec we cannot refer 
description from resource shape to vocabulary.
However, we don't have XSLT script for resource shape but only for 
vocabulary.
My suggestion also will solve this.
Otherwise, we can manage the common descriptions in parallel but it seems 
not a good idea.

Any ideas?

Kaz