This wiki is locked. Future workgroup activity and specification development must take place at
our new wiki
. For more information, see
this blog post about the new governance model
and
this post about changes to the website
.
TWiki
>
Main Web
>
CmHome
>
CmSpecV2Issues
(03 Oct 2013,
SteveSpeicher
)
(raw view)
---+!! OSLC CM Spec V2 Issues %RED%The [[http://open-services.net/wiki/change-management/Issue-2.0/][new V2 issues page HAS MOVED]] %ENDCOLOR% This section captures the issues raised via review comments on: * CmSpecificationV2 - the OSLC-CM V2.0 Specification Issues are organized via the spec outline. Note: dates below use US format (mm/dd/yyyy) Here's what the states mean: * %RED%OPEN%ENDCOLOR% - indicates that we have no response for the issue yet * %GREEN%RESOLVED%ENDCOLOR% - indicates that we have a response that we believe resolves the issue * RESOLVED - indicates it is resolved as by above definition and edits in the draft specification have been made. * CLOSED - issue has been resolved and the resolution has been reviewed by the workgroup * %ORANGE%DEFERRED%ENDCOLOR% - indicates that issue will be addressed in guidance after the specification converges * %PURPLE%TABLED%ENDCOLOR% - indicates that issue will be reconsidered at some later but unspecified date ---+ After Finalization of 2.0 1 CLOSED The following states oslc:domain is part of oslc:ServiceProvider but really should say oslc:Service: "OSLC CM service providers MUST supply a value of http://open-services.net/ns/cm# for the property oslc:domain on either oslc:ServiceProvider or oslc:ServiceProviderCatalog resources. " (IanGreen, 12/03/2010) * *Response* Agree, need to update (simply remove the "Provider" from oslc:ServiceProvider.<br />Fixed in [[http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2?rev=92][revision 92]] (SteveSpeicher 01/04/2011) 1 CLOSED *MOVED to OslcCoreV2Issues* =oslc:discussion= is listed as a common property but it is not listed as such in OSLCCoreSpecAppendixA Also suggest a better name like =oslc:discussedBy= (WikiName, 01/07/2011) * *Response* Possible ways to handle: move to =oslc_cm= namespace or update common properties table. (SteveSpeicher 1/21/2011) 1 CLOSED *MOVED to OslcCoreV2Issues* =oslc:discussion= is also listed as a property of =oslc:Comment= in OSLCCoreSpecAppendixA though with a different meaning (WikiName, 01/07/2011) * *Response* Possible ways to handle: remove =oslc:discussion= from =oslc:Comment= or rename to something like =oslc:partOfDiscussion=. (SteveSpeicher 1/21/2011) 1 CLOSED *MOVED to OslcCoreV2Issues* How to create =oslc:Comment= resources? Appears to be no guidance, perhaps a Core issue? (WikiName, 01/07/2011) * *Response* Possible ways to handle: add informative section saying to use creation factories or simply use resource update, adding a new comment entry. There once was a statement about POSTing to the Discussion URL to create comments, not sure why it was removed.. (SteveSpeicher 1/21/2011) 1 <span style="color: #ffa500">DEFERRED</span> In the OSLC-CM v2 spec, we say that OSLC CM service providers must support Query Capabilities and Creation Factories I think we may be too vague here because we don't say what "support" means. (DaveJohnson, 01/11/2011) * *Response* Propose we mark this deferred (SteveSpeicher mm/dd/2010) * *Response* Agreed to defer (SteveSpeicher 02/21/2013) 1 <span style="color: #ffa500">DEFERRED</span> =oslc_cm:tracksChangeSet= description uses term "target" which is not typical. Also, need to have a better description to allows for a wider set of possible resource types (WikiName 02/09/2011) * *Response* Proposed response: change "target" to be more inline with RDF terms "object". We need core term support for this? The description should include or forward reference the "tracks" description below the table. (SteveSpeicher mm/dd/2010) * *Response* Agreed to defer (SteveSpeicher 02/21/2013) 1 CLOSED Need to determine how to reference or recommend new addition to Core of [[http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreSpecification?sortcol=table;up=#Dialog_Resizing][Dialog resize]] (SteveSpeicher, 03/14/2011) * *Response* Propose that we don't make a change and 'defer' this (SteveSpeicher mm/dd/2011) * *Response* Agreed nothing needed to do (SteveSpeicher 02/21/2013) 1 <span style="color: #ffa500">DEFERRED</span> Consider removal of [[http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2#Requesting_and_Updating_Properti][partial update]] as the guidance never advanced to a finalized status. (SteveSpeicher, 04/11/2011) * *Response* Propose that we remove a this section on PATCH-based partial update (SteveSpeicher mm/dd/2011) * *Response* Agreed to defer, not fix in 2.0 (SteveSpeicher 02/21/2013) 1 CLOSED "Resource Shapes for Query Capability" link is broken in this section on the CM spec. http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2#Query_Capabilities. (SamPadgett, 05/05/2011) * *Response* Fix the link (SteveSpeicher mm/dd/2011) * *Response* Remove the links in http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2?rev=98 (SteveSpeicher 02/21/2013) 1 CLOSED The namespace URIs resolve to vocabularies, should make them more obvious in the spec. (SteveSpeicher, 05/05/2011) * *Response* Consider making the URI linkable. (SteveSpeicher mm/dd/2011) * *Response* made namespace URI linked (SteveSpeicher 02/21/2013) 1 CLOSED [[http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/2011-November/001161.html][dc:type and Dublin Core's guidance wrt rdf:type.]] (SamPadgett, 11/15/2011) * *Response* Consider updating usage of dc:type to match Dublin Core's recommendation. (SteveSpeicher mm/dd/2011) * *Response* Remove property and defer further to 3.0 (SteveSpeicher 02/21/2013) * *Completed* Moved dc:type to [[http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2?sortcol=table;up=#Deprecated_terms][deprecated section]] (SteveSpeicher 10/03/1013) 1 <span style="color: #ffa500">DEFERRED</span> Current language around state predicates unclear. The [[http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2?sortcol=table;up=#Resource_ChangeRequest][ChangeRequest resource]] lists that they are optional, but the [[http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2?sortcol=table;up=#State_Predicates][State Predicates section]] says they MUST be queryable (seeming to imply that they're required). (SamPadgett, 03/26/2012) * *Response* Defer to 3.0 as the state predicates are being reworked (SamPadgett 02/21/2013) 1 CLOSED [[http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-cm_open-services.net/2012-February/000351.html][Proposal and problem]] Suggested improvements to "link label" specification writeup. (Steve Speicher, 02/02/2012) * *Response* Made [[http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2?rev=97][change in revision 97]] as preposed in above (SteveSpeicher 04/10/2011) ---+ During Convergence and Finalization of 2.0 %RED% Do NOT add to this list. This is for historical purposes only%ENDCOLOR% 1 CLOSED Should we specify properties that don't have value-types, example: priority, severity (ScottBosworth begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting, 05/12/2010) * *Response* resolved to exclude these properteis (SteveSpeicher 05/19/2010) 1 %ORANGE%DEFERRED%ENDCOLOR% Need specification for state transitions (SteveSpeicher, 05/12/2010) * *Response* Proposed has been drafted and put in an [[CmExperimental][experimental status]] to get more review, implementation feedback needed. (SteveSpeicher 05/19/2010) 1 CLOSED Need multi-valued property partial update (SteveSpeicher, 05/12/2010) * *Response* Adopt multi-valued property partial update from guidance (SteveSpeicher 05/12/2010) 1 CLOSED Moving resource definition oslc_cm:Discussion to core (SteveSpeicher, 05/18/2010) * *Response* Done: see OSLCCoreSpecAppendixADRAFT#Common_Resource_definitions (SteveSpeicher 05/21/2010) 1 CLOSED Need to identify dialogs for relationship properties (SteveSpeicher, 05/19/2010) * *Response* Propose to add property name or resource type to Dialog definition, added oslc:usage property (SteveSpeicher 07/07/2010) 1 CLOSED Change of state predicate of oslc:open to be oslc:closed, as it is more straightforward (SteveSpeicher, 05/23/2010) * *Response* Proposal to change to oslc:closed (SteveSpeicher 05/25/2010) 1 CLOSED Naming of some of the relationship properties, those that start with manages* would be better named tracks* (SteveSpeicher, 05/23/2010) * *Response* Proposal to adopt these changes (SteveSpeicher 05/25/2010) 1 %ORANGE%DEFERRED%ENDCOLOR% Proposal to change ProgressTracking properties to be workCompleted (double), workTotal (double), workUnit (localized string), workProjectionValue (double, Projection value is negative for work behind, or positive for work ahead, 0 for 'on time') (MartinAesclimann, 05/25/2010) * *Response* Plan to get more implementation feedback and adding to experimental page (SteveSpeicher 06/22/2010) 1 CLOSED Specification is missing a writeup that helps clarify the limitations of change request creation based on shape (SteveSpeicher, 05/25/2010) * *Response* Recommend adding a section that discusses resource creation and client expectations (SteveSpeicher 05/25/2010) 1 CLOSED State predicate oslc_cm:validated, what is it used for? Is it supposed to be oslc_cm:verified? (AndreWeinand, 05/26/2010) * *Response* Recommend changing to oslc_cm:verified (SteveSpeicher 05/26/2010) 1 CLOSED Relationship properties don't appear to align with core guidance and some other specs, how link value URIs imply type of resource (ScottBosworth, 05/26/2010) * *Response* Brought spec current with link guidance (SteveSpeicher 06/22/2010) 1 CLOSED suggestion to add in the introduction some mention that these specs regard both data types and protocol elements regarding the service interfaces behaviours (i.e. OSLC-CM is not a data format nor a simple API, but a full set of a quit extensive protocol) (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* Agree to update intro (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED add in terminology something about "Resource" mentioning somehow the RDF / SemWeb context (hence URIs, resource links, etc.) (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* This is done in the Core Spec (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED Base requirements / Compliance : which OSLC-Core version explicitely ? (1.0 ?) must OSLC-CM V2 be compliant with ? (I assume not any later version without OSLC-CM version increment ? (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* Will attempt to reword this section, making requirements more clear (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED Resource formats / UIs : mentioning (X)HTML explicitely for UIs (since REST HTTP-based protocol, that would make sense/ be implicit ?) ? (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* Agree we should add this.(SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED Authentication, Error response, Pagination, etc. up to CM Resource Definition may not be placed early in the docs, as not so much important, and the impatient reader may prefer to learn... (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* attempted to do this and agree these sections should be first. (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED State Predicates : definition of what a predicate is should go first (or in terminology at beginning ?) : on the 3 paragraphs, the last one should be first IMHO : the rules first, and the rationale / use case later.(OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* Agree to improve these sections (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED dc:creator : this has been discussed several times but the end result / rationale is not clear (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* Creator is the person (or person who owns an agent id) that is responsible for the resource to be created (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED rdf:type : should it be constant and set to http://open-services.net/xmlns/cm/2.0#ChangeRequest ? (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* should be constant and multiple rdf:types can be used to indicate a subclass of. (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED oslc:serviceProvider : shouldn't it be more "meaningful" if named like : changeManagementService, even if the target resource is a oslc:Serviceprovider ? (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* oslc:serviceProvider is common property and makes it easy for clients to just ask any OSLC resource for its service provider definition. Agree that it should be zero-to-one (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED The naming convention used for *oslc:testedByTestCase*, *oslc:affectsTestExecutionRecord*, and *oslc:blocksTestExecutionRecord* relationship properties includes the target resource type. Their inverse relationships are currently listed as *oslc:tests*, *oslc:affectedBy*, and *oslc:blockedBy*. Following the naming convention they should instead be *oslc:testsChangeRequest*, *oslc:affectedByChangeRequest*, and *oslc:blockedByChangeRequest*. (PaulMcMahan, 06/7/2010) * *Response* We are no longer defining the inverse links in CM, QM should define its relationships (SteveSpeicher 06/22/2010) 1 CLOSED The QM work group is defining two resources for test execution - !TestExecutionRecord and !TestExecutionResult. The change request relationship properties listed in the CM spec currently include oslc:affectsTestExecutionRecord and oslc:blocksTestExecutionRecord which both imply the same type of target resource (!TestExecutionRecord). I would suggest instead oslc:affectsTestExecution*Result* and oslc:blocksTestExecutionRecord. The corresponding inverse links in the QM spec are currently defined this way. (PaulMcMahan, 06/7/2010) * *Response* We have eliminated inverse links from CM spec, have updated r37 to include new list (SteveSpeicher 06/22/2010) 1 CLOSED See previous issue posted re: !TestExecutionRecord and !TestExecutionResult. I suggest an additional relationship property of oslc:relatedTestExecutionResult for Change Requests (PaulMcMahan, 06/7/2010) * *Response* Have added oslc:tracksTestExecutionRecord (SteveSpeicher 06/22/2010) 1 CLOSED Some properties are missing read-only attribute, like dc:modified (PaulMcMahan, 06/7/2010) * *Response* Propose to review and update those specific properties (SteveSpeicher 06/22/2010) 1 CLOSED Seems undesirable to require OSLC-Core-Version as it will require every version going forward to have it. Would be better if there was a 1.0 requirement or way that it would be clear (SteveSpeicher for JDR, 06/15/2010) * *Response* No other workable alternative could be reached, going forward with current model (SteveSpeicher 7/01/2010) 1 CLOSED dc:identifier : the rationale of having it in addition to the resource URI may be necessary, ... (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* Will provide example to illustration dc:identifier usage (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED dc:type : ain't it a core property (since "dc", would look like") ?... (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* Will provide example to illustration dc:identifier usage (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED oslc_cm:status : maybe should refer to the predicates ? ... (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* will need to clarify the relationship between the two (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED State predicate properties : that is far from clear and needs examples. May a basic workflow diagram / matrix help here, since some predicates values seem mutually exclusive ? ... (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* agree, need to provide more claification (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED Relationship properties : the specs should convey non-ambiguous semantics (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* Aligned with core guidance and refined naming. TODO: clearly define resources used (SteveSpeicher 06/22/2010) 1 CLOSED Relationship descriptions would benefit from some OWL like domain + range resource types (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* agree, incorporate additional relationship guidance from core (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED Version Compatibility with 1.0 Specifications / Media Types : what's the difference (not) with 1.0, exactly here ? (OlivierBerger, 05/27/2010) * *Response* action to update spec (SteveSpeicher 06/02/2010) 1 CLOSED Partial Update is currently a MUST requirement but recent spec has been published, concerns on cost/complexity as a MUST (SteveSpeicher, 07/07/2010) * *Response* Propose to lower the requirement to a SHOULD. (SteveSpeicher 07/13/2010) 1 CLOSED How to discover if service provider supports partial update (SteveSpeicher, 07/13/2010) * *Response* Those that don't support it can respond with 501 (not implemented). Concerns over whether clients will support patch if not all service providers will implement. This can be done using OPTIONS and Allow header on response to indicate which HTTP Verbs are supported (SteveSpeicher 07/21/2010) 1 CLOSED Need a way to prime a link label (PatrickStreule, 08/18/2010) * *Response* Added reified statements to links in spec (SteveSpeicher 09/01/2010) ---++ Template 1 %RED%OPEN%ENDCOLOR% Sample/template issue (copy and paste) (WikiName, mm/dd/2011) * *Response* _Need response_ (SteveSpeicher mm/dd/2011)
E
dit
|
A
ttach
|
P
rint version
|
H
istory
: r52
<
r51
<
r50
<
r49
<
r48
|
B
acklinks
|
V
iew topic
|
Ra
w
edit
|
M
ore topic actions
Topic revision: r52 - 03 Oct 2013 - 18:54:57 -
SteveSpeicher
Main
Main Web
Create New Topic
Index
Search
Changes
Notifications
RSS Feed
Statistics
Preferences
Webs
Main
Sandbox
TWiki
Български
Cesky
Dansk
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
日本語
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Svenska
简体中文
簡體中文
Copyright � by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Contributions are governed by our
Terms of Use
Ideas, requests, problems regarding this site?
Send feedback