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.
-- DaveJohnson - 06 Oct 2010

OSLC Core Meeting October 6, 2010

Last week's meeting

Meeting logistics

See the OslcCoreMeetings for more information, more dial-in numbers and on-line meeting information.

  • Conference Access
    • Toll free: 1-866-423-8350
    • Toll: 1-719-387-8273
  • Participant passcode: 558663

Agenda

  • Proposal to add to Appendix A: common properties
    • rdfs:member OSLC domains might define a number of member or contains relationships between resources. The rdfs:member property is suitable for use when only one such relationship needs to be defined, or when no additional semantics need to be implied by the property name.

Minutes

Attendees and notes from the meeting

Attendees

Topics discussed

  • Discussion: rdfs:member: should we add it to common properties
    • Dave J: we use rdfs:member in the examples, and now in OSLC-SCM. It should be in Appendix A
    • Jim C: does this imply some schema meaning that we do not want?
    • Dave J: no, according to Arthur this is not a problem for rdfs:member
    • Tack T: doesn't this impact ongoing implementations?
    • Dave J: no, this should not be a problem, common properties are not required
    • Nick C: your reporting code require shapes now, so you'll find rdfs:member in shapes and should work fine
    • Dave J: should we clarify/explain the use of rdfs:member in the XML examples
    • Ian G: yes, should be specified
    • AI Dave J: add rdfs:member to common properties
    • AI Dave J: propose clarification for rdfs:member

  • Discussion: what RDF or HTML should be returned when a namespace URI is dereferenced
    • Scott B: Arthur has done quite a bit of work and it looks pretty complete to me
    • Scott B: He has also provided an XSLT stylesheet to go from RDFS to TWiki syntax
    • Scott B: I think it needs some more review from this group
    • AI Everybody: review Arthur's guidelines

  • Ian G: does it make sense to be an OSLC core consumer?
    • Jim C: yes, it does. You could create a generic provider
    • Ian G: right, Tack Tong has written such a provider, but how can you get additional meaning?
    • Tack T: my work could be a starting point, but we do not do any creation or update
    • Ian G: would it make sense for a client to advertise itself as a generic client?
Topic revision: r3 - 06 Oct 2010 - 15:10:27 - 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