[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] (CAMP-225) Are "general representations" normative?
[ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/CAMP-225?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=67190#comment-67190 ] Anish Karmarkar commented on CAMP-225: -------------------------------------- This is a TAB issue. Original issue https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TAB-1543 > Are "general representations" normative? > ---------------------------------------- > > Key: CAMP-225 > URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/CAMP-225 > Project: OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms (CAMP) TC > Issue Type: Bug > Environment: Normative > Reporter: Chet Ensign > > Beginning in Section 4, 4.3.2 Plan, the following language appears: > "...has the following, general representation:" > Since section 4 is a normative section, is the "general representation" normative? > This was prompted in part because the same formatting is used for 5.16.4 Required JSON Format Resource, "...is defined as..." and I assume there it really IS normative. Literally that format/values is required. Yes? > Are you using "general representation" because some of these items may have key/value pairs not defined by CAMP but locally? > Hmmm, ah, but these aren't "representations" are they? These are content models with required and optional key/value pairs, along with data types. > Suggestion: don't say "general representations" but rather: 5.17 type_definition Resource: This resource is a sub-type of the collection resource and is defined as: (here appears the content model) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.2.2#6258)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]