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: Re: [oslc-core] Review of Overview document

Comments embedded below as usual in <jra> tags.

Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data

From:        "Sarabura, Martin" <msarabura@ptc.com>
To:        "OSLC Core TC (oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org)" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        01/31/2016 04:01 PM
Subject:        [oslc-core] Review of Overview document
Sent by:        <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>

Jim, just a few minor alterations here plus a question for section 6.9.1. Most importantly, when I loaded the document into my FF browser I got ReSpec 2 in the upper right corner, with error messages:
  1. Missing required configuration: revision
  2. Error loading references from 'https://specref.jit.su/bibrefs?refs=RFC2119,LDP,OSLCCore2,WEBARCH,HTTP11,Turtle,LDBestPractices,rdf11-concepts,HTML5,SHACL,rfc6749,OpenIDConnect,SPARQL': error ()
As a result I was unable to confirm the internal reference hyperlinks. When the ReSpec problem is fixed I'll check each of the hyperlinks.

<jra>You probably saw this morning that Nick has fixed this.</jra>
Current in progress editor's draft, expect change.
Section 1
This has resulted in strongdemand... (don't think we need the adjective)
... there is a need for a sufficient supporting architecture that is[:] loosely coupled... (remove colon)
Second paragraph: Nonetheless, it can be used by tools belonging to any other domains and cross-domain scenarios.
and perhaps some examples: , for example Internet of Things, back office applications, and customer relationship management.
Section 3
OSLC Server: defined by at least oneOSLC-based specifications.
OSLC Domain Specifications: I think it should also mention existing non-OASIS specifications. Not sure exactly how to say it however.
<jra>...including existing open-services.net specifications and new specifications created...</jra>
Section 3.1
... any more (needs a space)
Section 4.
New capabilities related to traceability and impact types? I don't recall those particular improvements - perhaps you can provide links? Might be a good idea to add links for Attachments and inverse link labels too.
Inverse link labels should not be capitalized.
<jra>They're in core vocabulary. Links are provided in a later section, this is a quick introduction.</jra>
Section 5
Some scenarios[,] require the need to... (remove comma)
For these scenarios the technology is evolving rapidly.
Section 6
Mark this section non-normative
Although OSLC Core could be useful on its own... Really? I think it has value only in the context of a domain, even if that domain is not an officially published domain.
<jra>Not sure if a section is marked non-normative, then its subsection inherit that designation. I marked it non-normative and assume that any subsection that is not marked is considered normative.</jra>

Section 6.1
and providing meta[-] data to tools that handle RDF data such as form and query builders. (moved clause, remove dash)
Section 6.4
First section is non-normative
... in concert with existing industry standards and which offer consistency...
... have adopted the convention to illustrate scenarios using Turtle and JSON-LD... (also, is it true that both are used? Should it say "and optionally JSON-LD, or "and/or JSON-LD"?)
...the convention to illustrate most examples using Turtle and/or JSON-LD representations...</jra>

Section 6.9
... projection of desired properties... (should you say filtering rather than projection?)
Ofter time, Eventually that may lead to the deprecation of OSLC Core 2.0 Query Capability
<jra>fixed (filtering, yes)</jra>
Section 6.9.1
What about discoverability of the query syntax? How do you know whether the server supports OSLC 2 query, or SPARQL, or any other future query ability?
<jra>OSLC doesn't define discovery of query syntax, it only supports one syntax. If/when this changes, then some discovery mechanism might be required.</jra>

Section 6.10
... particularly useful in handling results from the query capability or listing contents of an LDP container.

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