Hello Ian,
Thanks for your reply and for referring to the oslc:instanceShape
property in the context of our discussion. Based on the OSLC Core
specification, it seems that an OSLC resource mustn't have an
oslc:instanceShape property. Quote from http://open-services.net/wiki/core/CoreVocabulary/#ResourceShape:
" Formally, a
shape S applies to a resource R
- if there is a triple R rdf:type T
and there is a triple S oslc:describes T,
- or if there is a triple R
oslc:instanceShape S."
Since an OSLC resource shape can be applied in two different ways
to an OSLC resource, does this mean that we have to adopt two
different strategies for supporting the reference of an OSLC
resource to its multiple possible resource shapes with the
following URIs:
Thanks for your feedback on this issue.
Best regards,
Axel
On 12/4/2013 4:55 AM, Ian Green1 wrote:
Hello Axel
Putting aside the versioning
aspect,
have you considered the meaning of more than one
oslc:instanceShape? The
current OSLC Core V2 based specs require that a resource has at
most one
oslc:instanceShape; the meaning of two or more hasn't been
defined. The
Resource Shape member submission might be the place to approach
this topic.
It might be that this question
can't be sensibly answered without assuming/requiring a relation
between
the instanceShapes (e.g., versioning, extension etc.)
best wishes,
-ian
ian.green@uk.ibm.com (Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB)
IBM Rational
<oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on
03/12/2013
19:36:27:
> From: Axel Reichwein <axel.reichwein@koneksys.com>
> To: oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org,
> Cc: parham vasaiely
<parham.vasaiely@eads.com>,
James Conallen
> <jconallen@us.ibm.com>
> Date: 03/12/2013 19:37
> Subject: [oslc-core] version management of
OSLC
specifications
> Sent by:
<oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> Hello OSLC Core,
>
> I have a technical question concerning the version
management of
> OSLC specifications. In the OMG OSLC4MBSE working group,
which I co-
> chair, we are currently implementing a mapping from SysML
into OSLC
> resource shapes. As multiple versions of SysML (1.3, 1.4,
etc...)
> exist, we are facing a problem with dealing with multiple
versions
> of corresponding OSLC Resource shapes.
>
> Typically, an RDF resource description includes a
reference to a
> resource type URI (e.g. the OSLC resource shape URI).
Since the
> semantics and constraints imposed on SysML elements can
vary from
> version to version, we think that we need to include in
the resource
> description of a SysML element a reference to the
version-specific
> resource type URI (e.g. http://www.omg.org/sysml/block/1.3)
. On the
> other hand, we also think that it is necessary to have a
generic
> resource type URI (e.g. http://www.omg.org/sysml/block)
which
> identifies the concept independent of any specific
version since
> there will be web clients which are not interested in
knowing the
> specific version of a resource type. Our current idea is
to include
> in the resource description of a SysML element a
reference to the
> generic resource type URI as well as the version-specific
resource
> type URI. This would allow web clients to very easily
know the
> version-specific type URI as well as the generic type
URI.
>
> As we are interested in adopting an approach which is
aligned with
> other OSLC specifications, I would like to know your
perspective on
> this issue. I have cc'ed Parham Vasaiely from Airbus and
James
> Conallen from IBM who have participated in our OSLC4MBSE
> discussions. They may reformulate our approach if I
haven't
> expressed the concern clearly enough.
>
> Best regards,
> Axel
> --
> Axel Reichwein, PhD
> CEO | Koneksys
> -------------------------------------------
> Web: www.koneksys.com
> Twitter: @AxelReichwein
> Phone: +1 404 549 8100
> Email: axel.reichwein@koneksys.com
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales
with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
Hampshire PO6
3AU
|