"Vocab" section & wording tweaks. Re: [oslc-core] OSLC Core 3.0 - Overiew **PLEASE REVIEW by January 22nd**

[Martin P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com>]

Hi Steve,

Looks good on the whole.



I'm not quite sure I understand the
intention of this statement: "Domain specifications should simply
be domain vocabularies and ontologies, leveraging protocol capabilities
defined by W3C LDP."
Saying "should simply be vocabularies"
sounds like you're suggesting that the vocabs do not exist separate from
the specs, but that would seem to go against lessons learned from 2.0,
and also against the sentence "Domain vocabulary terms should be developed
with global reuse in mind."
It sounds like it's trying to place
a restriction on what should be in a spec (the word "simply"
makes it sound like it's giving an exhaustive list - maybe it is) but the
word "leveraging" is quite vague as to what would actually be
in the spec document, and it doesn't mention resource shapes, which are
then referred to a couple of sentences later.

Was the intention something along the
lines of:
"Various OASIS OSLC affiliated
TCs, or any specification development body that is authoring specifications
for specific domains of knowledge, will minimally define vocabularies and
the semantics behind the various terms. Domain specifications are the definition
of an OSLC capability, and how those vocabulary terms are used in HTTP/LDP
interactions by both the clients and servers of that capability. This will
include defining resource shapes that describe resources based on a set
of vocabulary terms, which introduces any domain specific constraints on
the vocabulary's usage. Domain vocabulary terms should be developed with
global reuse in mind. Some global reuse considerations are when terms are
used for cross domain queries and within other domain resource shape definitions."



And a few minor things: there are also
a few places where the wording seems a little strange to me, but that might
just be a case of taste:
e.g.
"sufficient
yet only necessary aspects "
could be "sufficient aspects - yet only those that are necessary"
"These specifications are motivated
and sometimes based on best practices  and on the work of other OSLC
Member Section(MS)-affiliated TCs" perhaps "These specifications
have emerged from the best practices and other work of  other OSLC
Member Section(MS)-affiliated TCs"
"an updated set of specifications
that are: simpler, have layered capabilities and easier to adopt."
-> "an updated set of specifications that: are simpler, have layered
capabilities and are easier to adopt."
"The architecture needs to support
scenarios where there needs to be a protocol to access, create, update
and delete resources: which HTTP is the foundation for this [HTTP11]"
maybe "The architecture needs to support scenarios where there needs
to be a protocol to access, create, update and delete resources: where
HTTP is the foundation for this [HTTP11]" or "resources: HTTP
is the foundation for this [HTTP11]" or "resources: which is
HTTP [HTTP11]"
And the same with the RDF sentence.


Martin



From:      
 Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
To:      
 "OASIS OSLC Core
TC Discussion List" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:      
 08/01/2015 16:05
Subject:    
   [oslc-core]
OSLC Core 3.0 - Overiew **PLEASE REVIEW by January 22nd**
Sent by:    
   <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

All, 

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

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