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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

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

Subject: Re: [regrep] [RS Issue] Need clarification on comment on line 1410

Thinking in the abstract, if a target is deprecated is it also fair to 
assume references to it are deprecated?  Possibly yes, possibly no. 

Imaginary Use case:

User "bob" has been deprecated as part of a reorganization.  "bob" has 
been given 3 months to transition his role to someone else ("mary"), and 
during that three months he shall continue in his job.  If Association 
to process objects define "bob"'s position, should those associations be 
deprecated?  I don't think so.  Why?  Because those associations will 
need to be transitioned to "mary".  Maybe this needs to be an optional 
flag on the deprecate request.

Duane Nickull wrote:

> Goran:
> That probably depends on the type of reference.  If it is a reference 
> (association) of "supercedes", it probably should not be deprecated.  
> On the other hand, if it is a reference as "includes", that is another 
> matter.
> I guess this is a wake up call for a good set of user guides ;-)
> Duane
> Goran Zugic wrote:
>> I like Duane's idea as well. However, I also think that in a such 
>> case we should also (automatically) deprecate all objects that 
>> reference the deprecated object. For example, it doesn't make sense 
>> to keep an Association with a "valid" status (approved) that 
>> references a deprecated object. It raises another question related to 
>> the  RS specs. What is the reason that we don't deprecate objects 
>> that reference objects that were deprecated after their creation? 
> <SNIP>

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