with “I read this as 'posed'”, I assume you mean I read this as 'imposed', right? Your suggested text says ‘imposed”, so
wondering which you meant.
I will otherwise also take it your other suggested changed. But won’t have time to introduce them before our telco today
From: Nicholas Crossley [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2018 00:53
To: Jad El-Khoury <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [oslc-domains] [OSLC Domains] Actions on the TC reviews
Here are my comments:
It is perfectly acceptable for us to correct, expand, or clarify descriptions of existing vocabulary terms, properties in shapes, etc. - in fact, we have done so for Core 3.0 in several areas. We
can also (of course) add new terms. We cannot remove existing terms, and we should not completely change the meaning of an existing term.
In the new text about relationship properties and the reification technique, personally I would prefer to see some form of caution about the security/access concern - perhaps along these lines:
Implementers should take care that including the label or other properties of the target of a relationship within the RDF published for the source of that relationship does not expose data to which
the reader should not have access.
However, I do not feel strongly enough about this to insist on such a change.
"possed by a solution component" - I read this as 'posed'. Since we also use 'impose' later in the description, I suggest we be consistent and use that here, so the full text would read:
A condition or capability needed by a stakeholder, or imposed by a solution component, to address a need, solve a problem, achieve an objective, satisfy a contract, standard, specification, or other
formally imposed documents.
From: Jad El-Khoury <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/03/2018 03:49 PM
Subject: [oslc-domains] [OSLC Domains] Actions on the TC reviews
Sent by: <email@example.com>
I have now made the suggested changes to the RM specs, raised from the latest discussion on “Reified relationships in RM domain”.
I order to finalize the review comments I received from Martin & Mark, I would love to get your input on some of the remaining issues.
Martin, Mark, Jim & Nick!
Can I ask for your input on specific comments raised in the document
It is also attached for your convenience.
I have tagged each row where I need your input with your name.
Please feel free to simply add your respond in that same column “action left” and I can take it from there.
Otherwise, the only remaining issue that we are awaiting a decision from the Core TC relates to “resource formats” (rdf/xml, turtle).
Jad El-khoury, PhD
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Mechatronics Division
Brinellvägen 83, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: +46(0)8 790 6877 Mobile: +46(0)70 773 93 45
[attachment "OSLC RM TC Reviews.docx" deleted by Nicholas Crossley/Seattle/Contr/IBM]
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: