Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Core 3.0 - Overiew **PLEASE REVIEW by January 22nd**

[Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>]

Sam,

Comments below...

> From: Samuel Padgett/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
> To: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: "OASIS OSLC Core TC Discussion List"
<oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: 01/15/2015 02:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Core 3.0 - Overiew
**PLEASE REVIEW by January 22nd**
> Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Look good. I like that the overview is short and to the point, and
I think it's
> well stated. Figure 1 really helps.

Appreciate the feedback.
 
> A few specific comments:
> 
> I'm not sure we ever spell out the OSLC acronym. I agree we should
use
> just OSLC most places, but we should define it somewhere. This seems
> like a good place.
> 
I updated abstract to define this now.

> > It is recommended that OSLC MS-affiliated TC developed specifications
> > depend on OSLC Core 3.0 specifications, though the real goal
is to
> > minimize dependencies, which may override the need to depend
on OSLC
> > Core 3.0 specifications.
> 
> I was a little confused by this statement. It seems to say one thing
and
> then something else.
> 

I have modified this state to hopefully clarify the
intention of saying "keep dependencies to a minimum".  Let
me know if the improved text achieves that better then the previous.

> > Every capability or vocabulary term should be linked back to
key
> > integration scenarios that motivate its need.
> 
> I agree. Should we come up with a standard way to do this? I'm not
sure
> how I can trace a specific capability or vocabulary term back to a
> scenario today.

We should.  The intention of this document is
to motivate desired results, so it somewhat highlights a path for a "work
in progress".  Especially as we have just published this.  If
there is no reason not to do this, then we can look at a best practice
for doing this.  In the past I have updated the scenario page to indicate
how the new specification solves it.  It would also be valuable reference
from the specification itself, which is why we have the "Motivation"
section of the spec today.
 
> I think we should move the specification outline to a wiki page
> specifically for spec authors.

I was almost considering referencing the "spec
template" directly.  Though it might be better to have a wiki
page, then have the wiki page direct editors/authors to the appropriate
templates.

Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> http://open-services.net


> Thanks,
> -- 
> Samuel Padgett | IBM Rational | spadgett@us.ibm.com
> Eclipse Lyo: Enabling tool integration with OSLC
> 
> 
> <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 01/08/2015 11:04:51
AM:
> 
> > It would be very good to get everyone to review the "OSLC
Core 3.0 -
> > Overview" draft [1]. 
> > 
> > It is intended for all audiences: spec writers, those new to
OSLC, 
> > etc.  It is intentionally short too.  It will also
serve as the 
> > "cover letter" (if you will) to all 3.0 capability
specs. 
> > 
> > I'd appreciate any feedback: missing content needed, clarity
in 
> > areas or even that it has hit the mark and no changes needed.
> > Please try to get it to me by January 22nd. 
> > 
> > [1]: http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/oslc-
> > core/specs/oslc-core-v3.html 
> > 
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Steve Speicher
> > IBM Rational Software
> > OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> http://open-services.net