Link guidance notes

["Sarabura, Martin" <msarabura@ptc.com>]

I had another read through the document.

 

The following sentence appears twice in section 2.1:

Well behaved clients should gracefully handle resource types they don't expect when exercising links in resources.

 

Following on Jim's discussion at the last meeting regarding adding rich semantics to a link that goes beyond simple reification, what kind of approach are you considering? It seems to me we could achieve that result by creating a resource that represents the rich content for the link, then putting it between the source and target:

If A -> B is the link, and -> has some rich content, then create

A -> R -> B where R is a resource containing the rich content.

 

PTC Integrity currently uses a name and bit flags to represent the reified content - can't even add a timestamp to the relationship - and that works for our customers. If a customer requested richer content I would recommend the above approach but mostly because adding reification would be a challenge for us.

 

I'm interesting in hearing what you recommend Jim, if not the above approach.

 

 

Martin Sarabura

R&D Fellow, PTC