oslc-ccm message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Comments on Change Management 3.0 draft
- From: "Nicholas Crossley" <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>
- To: oslc-ccm@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 06:02:20 -0800
Global
Terms 'provider' (often but not always 'service
provider') and 'consumer' still used quite frequently
Section 2.1, Compliance, opening para: "makes
reference to OSLC capabilities that are not yet defined in OSLC Core 3.0"
-
what does that mean? Anything not yet in
Core 3.0 will never be in Core 3.0, and we have no idea what might
or might not be in releases after that (if
there ever are any).
Section 2.1, Compliance, Discovery, "OSLC
servers MUST support OSLC Core 3.0 Discovery" - what does this mean?
There's nothing
mandatory in Core 3.0 Discovery - no MUST
or MUST NOT statements. It seems more accurate to say:
"OSLC servers SHOULD provide a ServiceProvider
resource for Core v2 compatibility,
MAY provide a ServiceProviderCatalog, and
MAY provide other forms of discovery described in Core 3.0 Discovery."
This issue also applies to section 4.1.
Compliance, Basic Authentication, should
the 'should' in the https recommendation be 'SHOULD'?
Section 2.8.3 Updating Multi-Valued Properties
- refers to a draft page. I do not think this reference
should be considered valid for public review
or later stages of this spec, and anyway, LD Patch supersedes
any such mechanism. I suggest the entire
section be removed.
change-mgt-resources.html
Core 3.0 references are wrong (missing the
/trunk part of the path)
change-mgt-vocab.ttl
Line 69 and line 75, oslc:authorizor and
oslc:parent, shouldn't this be oslc_cm,
as well as the oslc: in the isDefinedBy?
change-mgt-shapes.ttl
line 376,384, oslc_cm:state and status
See our open action item to resolve this
for RTC. Meanwhile, this is unsatisfactory for CM 3.0 - we have
a reference to a dead 2.0 note as the only
way to change state?
ShapeChecker errors
oslc:valueType can't be oslc:Either - that's
a representation. You presumably meant oslc:AnyResource, or oslc:Resource.
vs:term_status is a vocabulary term, and
should not be applied to a property definition.
(We do not currently have a way of marking
an entire property as deprecated - only hidden.)
Nick.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]