[OASIS Issue Tracker] (OSLCCORE-44) oslc:instanceShape should explicitly allow multiple values

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-44?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=61157#comment-61157 ] 

James Amsden commented on OSLCCORE-44:
--------------------------------------

The semantics of multiple instance shapes would have to be defined in the context in which the shapes apply. For OSLC core, and probably for the domains, I think the meaning is that the shape constraints apply in all cases where the resources are considered in the context of OSLC integration. However, I could imagine other contexts in which different shapes would apply. How these are associated is to some extent a namespace issue. Shapes point to the resources they constrain, the resources don't directly reference their constraining shapes.


> oslc:instanceShape should explicitly allow multiple values
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OSLCCORE-44
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-44
>             Project: OASIS OSLC Lifecycle Integration Core (OSLC Core) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Martin Pain
>            Assignee: James Amsden
>
> With a quick look on both Core 2.0 and the W3C member submission for Resource Shapes, it looks like neither mention whether a client can expect zero-or-one or zero-or-many instanceShape links from a resource.
> I would expect zero-or-many. As I can't see any problem with an instance having the properties from multiple shapes. This would help with the question about vendor-specific shapes raised on OSLCCORE-25 - as then the resources can include a link to both the vendor-specific shape and the OSLC TC-minted-URI for the a shape as defined in the spec.
> In v3.0 I think we should clarify this to state that a resource can specify zero or more instance shapes. (If we don't already & I missed it).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)