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.

OSLC Core Meeting December 8, 2010

Last week's meeting

Link to OSLC Core spec: OslcCoreSpecification

Meeting logistics

How to dial-in to our telecon and login to our screen-sharing session (when we need it).

Telecon Info

  • USA Toll-Free: 888-426-6840
  • USA Caller Paid: 215-861-6239
  • Participant Code: 6867265

Online meeting

(when we need it)

Agenda

Multi-typed resources, Jim Conallen

There will be cases where a resource is of multiple rdf:types but we have no guidance on how this situation should be handled. Jim will lead a discussion to explain the related scenarios, the open issues and his recommendations for Core and/or other Domain work-group activities around this topic.

Examples and some point for discussion:

http://open-services.net/bin/view/Sandbox/MultiTypedResources

Minutes

Attendees and notes from the meeting

Attendees

Topics discussed

Below are my notes from the meeting - Dave

Jim

We've always said that resources can have multiple types

We've done a good job on specifying cardinality of types

But there are open issues and in AM we need multiple types

Here is an example of a multi-typed resource, both an AM and RM resource

Scott:

Can we start by talking about the general concept of multi-typed resources

What is a type, is it simply another property?

Dave:

That's how I see it

Arthur:

It depends on how you are defining ontologies, we are less formal

You guys are starting to use OWL, no?

Jim:

Yes, but not as part of OSLC work

I had assumed that resources that include OSLC types, follow OSLC semantics

Arthur:

No, anybody could put a type in a resource, that does not mean resource complies with spec

Jim:

If you cannot infer spec semantics, or properties then what good is a type

Jim:

Is provider allowed to support multiple specs simultaneously?

It is certainly possible

If I want to create an AM resource, I look for a factory that allows it

If I want a multi-type resource, I look for a factory that supports both types

But of course, that would work only if the implementor specifically allows

Dave:

How do you implement this in terms of service discovery resource?

Jim:

Provider provides two services, one for AM one for RM

(couldn't keep up with conversation here)

Ian:

What about the case where two specs define a common property differently?

We've split things up, now we have to bring them back together

Domain specs "own" their usage of common properties, this may be a problem

We shouldn't allow two specs to define different mean to common properties

(couldn't keep up with conversation here)

Arthur:

If we provided an ontology, then we could do type to property inferences

Arthur:

You cannot infer that a resource with a type follows our specs

The only time you can expect resource to behaved as specified is when you get it from an service that implements a specification

Steve:

Just because a creation factory lists two types does not mean it supports multi-typed resources

Dave:

This is a deep topic and we need more time to discuss

Possible ways to address:

- Change structure of OSLC specs, have one Core spec, and resource definitions for each domain

- Introduce Ontology tools such as OWL so properties can be inferred from types

- Changes to the way we handle common properties

- Guidance on Multi-typed resources

AI: Dave and Jim to discuss next steps

Topic revision: r5 - 15 Dec 2010 - 12:13:14 - DaveJohnson
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform 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