Subject: Review of change management spec
- Partial Resource Representations: "... and MAY support via HTTP PUT" should be moved to the next line on Partial Update.
- Deprecated terms not properly explained, and reference to CM 2.0 issues page contains no information on deprecation. I recommend that we include a short sentence for each deprecated term explaining why it is deprecated rather than relying on the hyperlink to the issues page.
- This sentence needs to start with the word "For": Details about the reason for being marked as such and backwards compatibility items, refer to the CM 2.0 Issues page.
- Add "Terms deprecated but not removed from the specification."
In the vocabulary terms document:
- oslc_qm namespace is never referenced from the document. We can remove that note in section 1.3.
- Problems with this sentence: affects - Indicates that the Change Request affects, has been predetermined to have impact, related resource. These property relationships can be used to understand the potential impact of referenced resources.
- I think a reference to informational reference [OSLCQM] is appropriate here. If not, then there is no reference to [OSLCQM] anywhere else in the document and it should be removed from the list of informational references.
Sections 3.1 et seq:
- Shouldn't we provide a UML diagram showing common terms on the abstract base class and the terms that are specific to each type of resource on the concrete instances? It's hard to compare - and natural to want to do so especially if you are a developer trying to conform to the spec.
- State never referenced elsewhere in the document
- State does not include "Rejected" - I believe it should.
Section 3.7 and 3.8:
- Following needs to be fixed: "NEEDS UPDATE: Improve descriptions."