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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oslc-domains message

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


Subject: RE: [oslc-domains] Reified relationships in RM domain


Hi

 

I found this text odd, because these properties are dcterms properties, and are not “defined by this specification” as it is claimed.

so, they should not be part of Part2.

 

I think the concept as discussed in part1 (https://rawgit.com/oasis-tcs/oslc-domains/master/rm/requirements-management-spec.html#labels) is probably sufficient. Note also that this text of part1 is the same as for CM – since the same idea applies to all domains.

 

regards

/Jad

 

 

 

From: oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Sarabura, Martin
Sent: den 20 mars 2018 03:07
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>; Nicholas Crossley <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>
Cc: oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [oslc-domains] Reified relationships in RM domain

 

Yes let’s not throw it all out. The relationship may have its own properties that are not downloaded from the object. Created by could refer to the person who created the relationship, right? Not sure how useful that one is but I know of at least one PTC attribute that we would want to attach to the relationship. It doesn’t belong to the object and isn’t a property of the subject itself, it’s a property of the relationship.

 

So I’m in favor of retaining the concept and documenting it, but I suppose my other concerns re v2 compatibility are not so critical.

 

Regards, Martin

 

 

 

From: oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Jim Amsden
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 3:02 PM
To: Nicholas Crossley <
nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Sarabura, Martin <
msarabura@ptc.com>; oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [oslc-domains] Reified relationships in RM domain

 

Although there are likely tools that are expecting this behavior and may not work properly without it.


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




From:        "Nicholas Crossley" <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>
To:        "Sarabura, Martin" <msarabura@ptc.com>
Cc:        "oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org" <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        03/19/2018 02:30 PM
Subject:        Re: [oslc-domains] Reified relationships in RM domain
Sent by:        <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>





Martin,

You are right in that the canonical example was the title. That is, when creating a link from a requirement to something else, the client could supply reified statements that included the title of the target resource - or the server could fill that in by default for future readers of the requirement. This could be useful when displaying lists of links, including in cases where the target resource was on a server not currently reachable.


However, subsequent thinking and discussion led the committee to realize that having the title, or any other property, copied into these reified statement could lead to security holes - the person reading the requirement might not have read access to the target resource. The title could contain classified names or other words, and similarly for other properties.


We came to feel that such reified statements were unnecessary duplication of data, and should be avoided in most cases.


Nick.




From:        
"Sarabura, Martin" <msarabura@ptc.com>
To:        
"
oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org" <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        
03/19/2018 09:22 AM
Subject:        
[oslc-domains] Reified relationships in RM domain
Sent by:        
<
oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>





Hi all, the previous version of the RM spec
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2#RM_Relationship_Propertiessays this:
RM providers MUST accept relationship properties, as described in OSLC Core Link Guidance. The following relationship properties are defined by this specification: …

Then the spec lists 5 properties, all with minimum cardinality 0 and therefore optional.
An equivalent statement does not appear in the new spec though the concept is discussed in this section
https://rawgit.com/oasis-tcs/oslc-domains/master/rm/requirements-management-spec.html#labels

Since all properties listed in the old spec are optional it’s reasonable that they are not explicitly included in the new spec. But why not include at least some examples in the non-normative guidance?

There is one word in the v2 spec above that seems confusing to me: accept. This suggests that there must be a method for the client to specify the value of a property. Do we want the client to be able to specify properties on the relationship? If so, then how would that be done? Of the examples given, only one might make sense – the dcterms:title. All the others could be assigned automatically by the server though it’s not clear to me how the server could assign multiple creators if only the currently logged in person is creating the relationship. Anyway, maybe this is just a v2 issue but I’d like to clarify if possible.

Thanks, Martin





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