OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oslc-core message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] (OSLCCORE-39) Names and descriptions of impact analysis direction properties are misleading

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-39?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=61646#comment-61646 ] 

James Amsden commented on OSLCCORE-39:

Since we're entertaining changing these impact vocabulary terms, perhaps we should consider elimination of the terms downstream and upstream. I find this definition "In a dependency relationship, the dependent resource is said to be downstream from the artifact it depends on. The artifact it depends on is said to be upstream from the dependent artifact. This terminology reflects the normal flow of work in the sense that artifacts flow downstream where new dependent artifacts are created." difficult to read, and hard to understand. Then applying it to a directed relationship defined by an rdf:Property just gets more confusing. 

Given that what we are trying to say is that for a given rdf:Property, assertions using that property may:
1. introduce subject dependsOn object 
2. introduce object dependsOn subject
3. introduce a reflexive dependency between both the subject and object
4. not introduce any dependency, it just stores some information

Why not use the directionality of the rdf:Property and the directionality of the dependency directly, and not introduce the upstream/downstream terms at all:

<http://open-services.net/ns/core#FollowsLink> a rdf:Description;
    rdfs:comment "The property represents a dependency from subject to object." ;

    rdfs:comment "The property represents a dependency from object to subject." ;

<http://open-services.net/ns/core#SymmetricImpact> a rdf:Description;
    rdfs:comment "The property represents a dependency from both subject to object and object to subject." ;

    rdfs:comment "The property does not represent a dependency."; 

> Names and descriptions of impact analysis direction properties are misleading
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: OSLCCORE-39
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-39
>             Project: OASIS OSLC Lifecycle Integration Core (OSLC Core) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Nick Crossley
>            Assignee: Nick Crossley
>            Priority: Minor
> The OSLC Core 3.0 vocabulary includes the terms defined in the Vocabulary Annotation Vocabulary (an addendum at http://open-services.net/wiki/core/Vocabulary-Annotation-Vocabulary/) from OSLC 2.0 days - though these terms were not published as part of OSLC 2.0 Core.
> However, two of the terms proposed for impact analysis have misleading names, and very misleading descriptions in the proposed Core 3.0 vocabulary:
> <http://open-services.net/ns/core#UpstreamImpact>
> 	rdfs:comment "Subject resources, indicated by triples of the subject property, have an upstream impact from the object resource." ;
> Impact is always felt downstream, as per the definition of these terms as described at http://open-services.net/wiki/core/Vocabulary-Annotation-Vocabulary/. What this term is trying to describe is that the link is pointing upstream, and so impact analysis should consider impact to flow in the opposite direction of the link. For this reason, both the original name and the 3.0 description are misleading.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]