Agenda

1. Quickly summarize points from last meeting.
2. Jim C. will present some concerns from the OSLC Leads team, regarding linking.
3. Review use cases, add additional eaboration ad detail.

Minutes

Atendees: Vishy Ramaswamny, Jim Amsden, Scott Bosworth, Nir Mashkif, Tom Picolli, Dan Leroux, Eldad Palachi, Ian Green, Jim Conallen

1. Ian G. presented some concerns on our resource models that are applicable to both the RM and AM domains. In these domains links are first class resources, unlike the QM and CM domains. Clients want a simple presentation and want to work with them in a simple way, otherwise the client will have to understand more about the semantics of the content.
2. We are looking at a progressive model between simple and complex clients.
3. Scott B. asked if we could find that progression and where we cross the bounds.
4. Jim A. argued that we might already have it.
5. The group discussed how a link would be represented in a resource as a simple element. In the resource it could be identified by with a rdf:id attribute. But in this case it doesn't have a separate life time. The life time of the link is bound by the resource that is on the subject end of it.
6. The question "do predicates need inverses" was brought up. Scott B. raised the concern that this would place requirements on service providers to implement link services.
7. Jim A. brought up the idea of a link mediator object to manage links with, and Ian G. commented that this is what the original spec was doing.
8. The conclusions from this meeting were that in the AM (and RM) domains links are first class resources. Clients need a simple model to manage them.