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] oslc:range property values.


It was just a note and should have been:These two properties don't specify a valueType since they could be literal or object values. So they should not have any oslc:range specified either.



Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
919-525-6575




From:        Nick Crossley/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS
To:        Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:        "OSLC Core TC (oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org)" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        02/22/2016 12:06 PM
Subject:        Re: [oslc-core] oslc:range property values.
Sent by:        <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>




I'm unsure what you mean by these two:
I'm fine with everything else.

Nick.

Inactive hide details for Jim Amsden---02/22/2016 08:17:04 AM---At the last Core TC meeting I was assigned the following actionJim Amsden---02/22/2016 08:17:04 AM---At the last Core TC meeting I was assigned the following actions: Weaken the description of range so

From:
Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
To:
"OSLC Core TC (oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org)" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:
02/22/2016 08:17 AM
Subject:
[oslc-core] oslc:range property values.
Sent by:
<oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>




At the last Core TC meeting I was assigned the following actions:
  1. Weaken the description of range so that it is recommended types, not required types
  2. Create an inventory of core object properties that could have a type and propose one
  3. Send out an email with this information and get feedback whether this should be included in the spec or not.

Below are the results. Take a look at the proposed oslc:range values and see if these are 1) useful and 2) not over-constraining server implementations or domain usages.

We should schedule a vote on this, and if adopted I will add the oslc:range values to the property shapes.





1. oslc:range property description:



In the specification body: The object resource SHOULD be any of the specified oslc:range types, but no inferencing is intended if the actual target resource is or is not one of these types. This is very different semantics than rdfs:range which does have inferencing implications.

This may already be weak enough.

in the shape file: "For object properties, an allowed object resource type."
Change to: "For object properties, specifies what the object resource type is expected to be, but that is not necessarily the case."


2. Proposed oslc:range values for object properties:



Common Properties:

Comment

Compact

CreationFactory

Dialog

Discussion

Error

ExtendedError

OAuthConfiguration

PrefixDefinition

Preview

Publisher

QueryCapability

ResourceShape

Service

ServiceProvider

ServiceProviderCatalog

Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member

OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data

919-525-6575








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