Re: [oslc-core] "Common properties" resource shape vs simple table (Re: [oslc-core] Version Control Commit by jamsden)

["Nick Crossley" <ncrossley@us.ibm.com>]

Unfortunately, I was traveling at the time of that meeting, so could not attend. I am surprised at the suggestion to use a human-written table.

While I have argued against trying to create a common 'Resource' class for the description of common properties via a shape for such a base class, nevertheless it seems to me that having a definitive Turtle source for the definition of common properties would improve consistency and reuse across domains, and if there exists such a definitive Turtle source, then the spec should be generated from it. If the current shapeToSpec _javascript_ function in ReSpec does not produce quite the right output, then I believe the better approach is to fix that, or create a different script that can be invoked from the common properties HTML page.

Nick.

"Martin P Pain" ---12/22/2015 12:51:19 AM---Two pieces of feedback/questions for this check-in: 1. When we talked about the common properties

From: "Martin P Pain" <martinpain@uk.ibm.com>
To: oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: 12/22/2015 12:51 AM
Subject: [oslc-core] "Common properties" resource shape vs simple table (Re: [oslc-core] Version Control Commit by jamsden)
Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Two pieces of feedback/questions for this check-in:
 
1. When we talked about the common properties in the meeting on 10th Dec, I believe the conclusion was to "use a human-written table rather than using the tool to communicate the "common" properties", as noted in the minutes.  (Although we didn't note that it was an agreement/conclusion). That is, listing them similar to the description of JSON properties in dialogs/previews. As it's not a shape (it's not constraints), it's a list of properties. There's no point using the spec2shape tool if it's not a good fit, and your difficulties are suggesting that it's not a good fit, and others have suggested shapes semantically not accurate for common properties. I know you got disconnected Jim, so weren't included in the last part of the discussion.
Can any one else confirm or deny my recollection of last meeting?
 
2. Also, is there a precedent for using `oslc:Any` as the object of an `oslc:describes` property? I can't actually find the definition of oslc:Any.
 
----- Original message -----
From: workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
To: oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc:
Subject: [oslc-core] Version Control Commit by jamsden
Date: Mon, Dec 21, 2015 10:06 PM
  
Author: jamsden
Date: 2015-12-21 22:05:59 +0000 (Mon, 21 Dec 2015)
New Revision: 310
Web View: https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/oslc-core/trunk/specs/?rev=310&sc=1

Modified:
   trunk/specs/core-vocab.html
   trunk/specs/shapes/CommonProperties-shape.ttl
Log:
Got core-vocab.html to be able to process CommonProperties-shape.ttl using ReSpec by making sure oslc:describes for each resource shape refers to a defined vocabulary resource. Can't reference foaf:Person yet. Issue OSLCCORE-57 raised.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
 
 
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

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php