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: Additional QM vocabulary and shapes issues

I have run ShapeChecker on the QM vocab and shapes and discovered the following potential issues/questions.

dcterms:relation, was added to QM 2.1 but is not defined in QM 2.0 - this property is not in AM, RM or CM. Does RQM need this property? Is there any harm in adding it?

oslc:shortId was in the RQM shapes, but is not defined in QM 2.0. oslc:shortTitle is defined in QM, RM and AM. Useful for resource preview, should be added since its Zero-one. But should oslc:shortId have been retained for compatibility?

oslc_qm:relatedChangeRequest, and many other QM relationship properties specify specific ranges in 2.0 that are any in 2.1. These range properties should be oslc:AnyResource. But should the more specific ranger constraints be retained for compatibility?

Should all the rdfs:seeAlso properties be removed from the vocabularies as we did in core since these are all OSLC 2.0 references.

Should rdfs:range properties be removed from all vocabulary properties as we did in OSLC core and CM? Some properties have multiple range values which created a ShapeChecker error.

The property constraints for QM resources have oslc:valueShape properties that refer to internal CE resource shapes. Should these be removed, or updated to reference the standard QM shapes?

oslc_qm:status property is defined in the QM shapes, but isn't in the vocabulary.

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

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