oslc-core message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Grouping related containers (was: OSLC & LDP: Query Capabilities, Creation Factories & location of Dialogs)
- From: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
- To: Martin P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:27:08 -0500
Hey Martin,
Responses below...
> From: Martin P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com>
> To: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: "OASIS OSLC Core TC Discussion List"
<oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: 12/04/2014 05:52 AM
> Subject: [oslc-core] Grouping related containers
(was: OSLC & LDP: Query
> Capabilities, Creation Factories & location of Dialogs)
> Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> Steve,
>
> In your "Discovery" document, section "Domain / types
supported" [1] (first
> of all I think you missed the oslc:resourceType predicate, as the
example
> doens't match your text. I've added it in for you) you raise the questions:
>
> 1. Which dialog do I use for Requirements?
> 2. Can a create ex:Story resources on this container? (ie are these
types
> supported for creation? or also for query?)
> 3. Can I query for oslc_cm:ChangeRequests?
>
> If all of those resource types (for this container) use the same dialogs,
> have the same creation operations available (i.e. either resources
of any of
> those types can be created, or of none), and have the same query operations
> available (i.e. either resources of all those types can be queried,
or none
> of them) then I think having one container for all three is fine,
as you use
> the existing mechanisms (or whatever container-level mechanisms we
come up
> with) to answer those questions.
>
> But as soon as you have different operations for different types,
I think
> you need different collections.
>
> e.g. in OSLC Automation, a provider is likely to have a read-only
collection
> of Automation Plans, a read-write collection of Automation Requests,
and a
> read-only list of Automation Results. So the Automation request header
would
> be the only one with an Accept-Post header, and the only one with
a creation
> dialog on it. They would all (probably) have selection dialogs.
>
Makes sense, this is how it worked in v2 as well.
> However, given that these three containers are tightly related, it
would
> make sense to group them. So, I guess we'd put those three collections
in a
> collection. Do you think there's any need to identify more about that
collection?
>
In v2, we bundled these into a single resource called
an oslc:Service
I'm not sure we really need a container for 3 fixed
things, can this not be achieved by just linking the containers together?
Thinking about what 1 URL someone would give for configuration,
they could give the AutoPlan container. From that, they would be
able to find/navigate the other containers. Would this work for Automation
needs?
> If we have any dialogs that apply to more than one resource type,
then they
> could go on that collection. (But then perhaps we have different semantics
> between a creation dialog that creates resources as members of the
> collection that dialog is linked from, and a creation dialog that
creates
> something related to [or a child of] resources in that collection).
I guess
> I need to work through the Automation scenarios and see what requirements
we
> have on it.
>
Perhaps these could be handled by having specialized
predicates on a container, such as oslc_auto:relatedRequestDialogs (I'm
making this completely up) but the case of creating something "related".
Though I think it would be better just to have a separate "requests"
dialog.
- Steve
> [1] https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-core/Discovery#Domain_.2BAC8_Types_supported
>
>
> <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 02/12/2014 21:40:39:
>
> > From: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
> > To: "OASIS OSLC Core TC Discussion List" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Date: 02/12/2014 21:40
> > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] OSLC & LDP: Query Capabilities,
Creation
> > Factories & location of Dialogs
> > Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> > I took the liberty to sketch in more detail what I meant from
some
> > of my comments below. I've put in a webpage how we can
build upon
> > the LDP Container concept many of the things we depended on in
2.0.
> > Requires some new vocabulary as sketched but pretty simple and
> > minimal, perhaps even cleanly layers on queryCapability/creationFactory.
> >
> > https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-core/Discovery
> >
> > Feedback welcome, we can review at upcoming meeting.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Steve Speicher
> > IBM Rational Software
> > OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> http://open-services.net
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> > To: "OASIS OSLC Core TC Discussion
List" <oslc-
> > core@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Date: 12/02/2014 08:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] OSLC &
LDP: Query Capabilities,
> > Creation Factories & location of Dialogs
> > Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > Thanks for sharing. This is timely, as I getting ready
to outline
> > this in more detail. I have done some work internally and
on my
> > todo list for this month to publish it out. I'll comment
directly
> > on some of the points you've raised below.
> >
> > - Steve
> >
> >
> > > From: Martin P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com>
> > > To: "OASIS OSLC Core TC Discussion List" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > Date: 12/02/2014 04:55 AM
> > > Subject: [oslc-core] OSLC & LDP: Query Capabilities,
Creation Factories &
> > > location of Dialogs
> > > Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > >
> > > As we move OSLC 3 to be based on LDP, I presume Query Capabilities
and
> > > Creation Factories will be replaced by capabilities from
LDP.
> > >
> > > As I'm starting to draft the Automation v3 spec, I've come
to the place
> > > where I need to be able to refer to the definition of the
headless query/
> > > selection and creation capabilities.
> >
> > I believe we don't need to define much of this in domain specs,
you
> > just need to leverage some basic ways that LDP and Core expose
> > capabilities and clients can discover it.
> >
> > > This also raises the question: are we keeping the existing
> > > oslc:ServiceProvider and oslc:Service resources? I see no
reason not to.
> > From a pure 3.0 spec perspective, no. I see no reason to
require these.
> > From a compatibility with 2.0 specs, then yes of course we'd
need to.
> >
> > >
> > > So my expectation of how this would go is:
> > >
> > > 1. An oslc:ServiceProvider:
> > >
> > > a) which is possibly discoverable
from an
> > oslc:ServiceProviderCatalog
> > > b) would contain one or more
oslc:Service resources
> > We could just have LDP Containers. Perhaps you could outline
the
> > specific needs of what a oslc:ServiceProvider should have, so
a
> > client/server could satisfy a certain. Typically the needs
are that
> > a client needs to interaction with a set of services that operate
on
> > types of resources, such a container.
> >
> > > 2. These oslc:Service resources:
> > >
> > > a) would each identify which
OSLC domain they operate in
> > using their
> > > oslc:usage property
> > >
> > >
i) (I believe this can also exist at the
> > oslc:ServiceProvider level)
> > >
> > > b) Link to LDP containers for
each of the resource types
> > they work with
> > >
> > >
i) (They may have more than one container for eachresource
> > > type, e.g.
> > >
Automation Requests ready for execution, and
> > Automation Request
> > >
templates)
> >
> > Essentially, you can think of what a "oslc:Service"
(and everything
> > it contains) as an LDP:Container, annotated to provide the needs
we
> > had before (query, dialogs, types, shapes, usage)
> >
> > > c) Maybe, they would still contain
the links to the
> > Creation & Selection
> > > dialogs (i.e. in the same place
as v2)
> > Yes
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > <> a ldp:DirectContainer;
> > oslc:creationDialog <#newDialog> ;
> > oslc:resourceType auto:AutomationRequest.
> >
> > <#newDialog> a oslc:Dialog;
> > oslc:dialog <http://example.org/ui/newDialog>;
> > dcterms:title "New Automation Request".
> >
> > > d) (for providers wanting to
be compatible with v2:) would
> > contain v2
> > > Creation Factories and Query
Capabilities
> >
> > Correct, we should keep the 3.0 specs "pure" and have
a separate
> > "note" on v2 compatibility. Imagine what the
3.0 spec would look
> > like to someone who knows nothing about v2 or 2 years from now,
> > should they know anything about v2?
> >
> > There has been some things started and actively being worked
now:
> >
> > Core 3.0: http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/
> > oslc-core/specs/compat.html
> > ChangeMgmt 3.0: http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/
> > wsvn/oslc-ccm/trunk/supporting-docs/change-mgt-compatibility.html
> >
> > > 3. Those LDP containers:
> > >
> > > a) would provide LDP's querying
mechanism. (Is there such
> > a thing? I
> > > can't find it.) replacing v2's
Query Capabilities
> >
> > No, it is being discussed for LDP "2.0". We could
simply do
> > something like this to advertise v2 query support on LDP Containers
> >
> > <> a ldp:DirectContainer ;
> > oslc:queryType <http://open-services.net/ns/core#OSLCQuerySyntax>.
> >
> > or something
> >
> >
> > > b) where appropriate, would
provide the creation
> > capability (replacing
> > > v2's Creation Factories)
> >
> > We could call a LDP Container a creation factory, that is all
it is.
> > Though I'm not sure if we need to carry that v2 terminology forward
in 3.0.
> >
> > > c) Maybe, it might be appropriate
to link from the container to the
> > > creation & selection dialogs
for the resources in that
> > container. So
> > > (for dialogs that are specific
to a single LDP container -
> > not all will
> > > be) all the operations for that
container are linked from
> > the container
> > > itself. However, compatibility
with v2 would require that
> > the dialogs
> > > are linked from the oslc:Service.
> >
> > Not sure I'm hearing anything I disagree with but not sure I
fully
> > get the point. I think it would be helpful if we worked an example,
> > side-by-side.
> > The way to think of it, starting with a Container...build up
from
> > there like I mentioned before: dialogs, query, etc.
> >
> > > In particular, right now I need to know:
> > > - Is 3a correct, or will we be keeping Query Capabilities?
> >
> > For at least 1st half of 2015, I think Query Capability will
remain
> > a thing only on open-services.net. It is there, we can
use it as
> > needed. We'll need to decide what we want to do with this
longer term.
> >
> > > I think 3c is also an important point to decide on.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Martin
> > > 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
> 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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]