RE: [oslc-domains] [OSLC Domains] Actions on the TC reviews

[Ian M Green11 <ian.m.green@uk.ibm.com>]

there is some guidance
at [1] which captures the concerns we had internally on link labels.

[1] https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/Reference/LinkLabels

Ian Green
ian.m.green@uk.ibm.com



From:
       "Nicholas
Crossley" <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>
To:
       Jad
El-Khoury <jad@kth.se>
Cc:
       Nicholas
Crossley <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>, "oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org"
<oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:
       19/04/2018
15:56
Subject:
       RE:
[oslc-domains] [OSLC Domains] Actions on the TC reviews
Sent
by:        <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

I meant that I
believe the original text was intended to be 'posed'. With an inanimate
'solution component' as the thing doing the posing, there is not much difference
between 'imposed' and 'posed', and 'imposed' is both more common and consistent
with the usage later in the sentence.

Nick. 



From:        Jad
El-Khoury <jad@kth.se> 
To:        Nicholas
Crossley <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>
Cc:        "oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org"
<oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        04/19/2018
04:53 AM 
Subject:        RE:
[oslc-domains] [OSLC Domains] Actions on the TC reviews
Sent by:        <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Thanks Nick 
  
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
  
/Jad 
  
  
From: Nicholas Crossley [mailto:nick_crossley@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2018 00:53
To: Jad El-Khoury <jad@kth.se>
Cc: oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [oslc-domains] [OSLC Domains] Actions on the TC reviews
  
Jad, 

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.

Nick. 



From:        Jad
El-Khoury <jad@kth.se>
To:        "oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org"
<oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        04/03/2018
03:49 PM 
Subject:        [oslc-domains]
[OSLC Domains] Actions on the TC reviews
Sent by:        <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Dear all, 
 
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 https://github.com/oasis-tcs/oslc-domains/blob/master/rm/OSLC%20RM%20TC%20Reviews.docx
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). 
 
regards 
______________________________ 
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 
jad@kth.se,
www.kth.se
[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:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.oasis-2Dopen.org_apps_org_workgroup_portal_my-5Fworkgroups.php&d=DwIBAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=GjwCRqtPs7eIJIYQ2Ts1FtMhYFjprGd8jgbGBRR0LKQ&m=JbJZyX88tm__0WwcHpVbSTiG5NTHR2foggRWlbjtq-g&s=VJmi0btt1hIAhJbjmlQHcMsSnI5Q6tszlqR1jymPEKY&e=




Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU