?oslc_cm.query=state="open"&oslc_cm.properties="dc:title,dc:owner{*}"
?oslc_cm.query=state="open"&oslc_cm.properties=dc:title,dc:owner{*}
?oslc_cm.query=state="open"&oslc_cm.properties=dc:title,dc:owner{*}
the interpretation of "dc" is ambiguous. i would suggest a fully-expanded form, but worry about long URIs. similar goes for JSON, though in that case the spec is explicit
Proposal: Need to something like ?oslc_cm.namespace=dc==http://purl.org/dc/terms/,jfs=http://jazz.net/xmlns/foundation/1.0/
e.source == frame.contentWindow
To inspect an individual link contents, we can modify the request to provide inline properties such as:
GET /records/12234-123344/blockedBy?oslc_cm.properties=blockedBy{*}
Accept: application/xml
Content:
<blockedBy oslc_cm:collref="/records/12234-123344/blockedBy">
<blockedBy rdf:resource="/links/1255-235411">
<dc:title>Bug 1234: Server DB issues</dc:title>
<url>http://remotesystem/bugs/1234</url>
</blockedBy>
<blockedBy rdf:resource="/links/123455-2344">
<dc:title>Defect 4: Not handling out of diskspace problems</dc:title>
<url>/records/128312-12492</url>
</blockedBy>
</blockedBy>
CmRestApiV1
Under "media types" on http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmRestApiV1
there is a TODO for valid RDF/XML -- where are we on that?
CLOSED validated sample and removed comment from spect
do we not have a dfinition for application/x-oslc-cm-change-request+json? or is this stricly XML?
CLOSED spec updated with definition
application/xml and application/json are still mentioned as formats under "http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmRestApiV1#Create_a_new_change_request" -- I think you mean application/x-oslc-cm-change-request+xml and application/x-oslc-cm-change-request+jsonl there, although if so, we do need the spec for the JSON format.
CLOSED Spec updated. WG agreed this would be required for POST
For attended resource ccreation, are we currently saying that you can either prpovide a 'ticket' or communicate back from the iFrame as in the picker case? If so, we're making our clients lives 2x as hard as they need to be, since they have to be prepared for either response.
CLOSED Specs updated with "form factory" concepts. WG agreed to remove this
Under "Get a change request" -- you do specify that the json format is allowed, but don't say what it is. Also -- are we requiring that requests text/html and application/xhtml+xml be satisfied? Are we providing a web UI in response to those requests?
CLOSED Yes, we are redirect to our Web UI presentations in these cases
"The formats returned MAY not represent the underlying service provider's data model." -- this actually doesn't make much sense to me; I'd strike it completely since we're not talking about underlying data models anywhere.
CLOSED WG agreed to move this comment to an introductory section
Under "Update a change request" - media types need to be updated to fully-qualified oslc media types. I don't think we'll accept plain application/xml or application/json here, do you?
CLOSED WG agreed to update with more specific media type for PUT
Under "Partial update of a change request" -- we should word this more clearly. http://foo.com/workitem/1234 is a different resource than http://foo.com/workitem/1234?propperties="headline" -- so this is not partial update of a change request: it's total update of a smaller resource. This may sound like a nit, but it's an important point (to me). Now that I think about it, we're surfacing the same incorrect mental model under both "Selected Properties" and "Response Properties" -- that should be phrased to reflect the fact that there are additional, logical resources that include only specific properties, with URLs that can be computed as described here.
OPEN need someone to take a pass at better wording
The "Selected Properties" discussion needs to be connected to the resources that support it in some way.
OPEN
On pagination: MUST be limited in size, or SHOULD be? I thought this was an advisory request...
CLOSED change made
Where are we on the discussion of what the media types are for inlined and subsetted resources?
OPEN We have concluded that discussion with a result that we would not inline any resourse beyond the first level. If we do expand the first level, then only wildcard is supported. Action to make it clear that subsequent requests for inlined resources will use generic media type. For example, if requesting cr+xml and inlining a User resource, request its content with plain xml media types.
OslcServiceProviderCatalogV1:
"The media type of a Service Provider Catalog Document is REQUIRED to be..." should say "MUST be"
OPEN According to RFC2119 MUST=REQUIRED, though we can reword to eliminate confusion
This doesn't use the table to describe the required and optional attributes as our other ones do; I don't know if it's worth adding that table at this point but it is an inconsistency.
OPEN Known, other things have taken priority and no one has updated
CmServiceDescriptionV1
says to 'rewrite with OslcServiceProviderCatalogV1" but this still needs doing.
CLOSED a todo
is this resource RDF/XML?
CLOSED Yes, it validates with RDF/XML validators
CmResourceDefinitionsV1
Do we need to say that this resource accepts 'open content'? Or something to indicate that it MAY contain elemements not specified here, and indicate what the server should do when POSTs come in with additional content? Perhaps indicate in the "Introduction" here that the reason for this being a minimal resource.
CLOSED spec updated that open conteWG agrees to update to make it clear that it supports open content