[oslc] Oslc-Core post from shani at il.ibm.com requires approval

Sun Jan 29 10:35:00 EST 2012

I agree with Uri that the main thing the OSLC group produces are
specification (that is, after all, the original point Steve made below to
motivate the change).
But note that there are lots of other OSLC things, other than what the OSLC
group produces (such as the "OSLC working groups" themselves, the "OSLC web
site", an "OSLC implementation", etc.
And I also agree with Uri that this means we will frequently be referring
to "OSLC specifications", such as the "OSLC Change Management
Specification" or the "OSLC Requirements Management Specification".
But I think that is OK.   I think the natural abbreviation would just be
"spec", and not an addition to the acronym (after all, I've never seen the
acronym OSLCS in use today, to stand for "Open Services for Lifecycle
Collaboration Specification").   And the expansion of OSLC is so wordy,
that nobody ever uses the full name except to introduce it once at the
beginning of a document.

But I'm also fine with just keeping the S to mean "Services" (:-).

Cheers,
Geoff

From:	Uri Shani <SHANI at il.ibm.com>
To:	Kartik Kanakasabesan/Durham/IBM at IBMUS
Cc:	community at open-services.net
Date:	01/29/2012 09:22 AM
Subject:	Re: [oslc] Oslc-Core post from shani at il.ibm.com requires
            approval
Sent by:	community-bounces at open-services.net

Indeed Katrik, what we do in OSLC is write specifications for OSLC...,
whose goal is not the specifications, but the enablement of some Open
Lifecycle Collaboration among Something(s), and for some domain(s) of
engineering tools.
I guess the S stands for classifying these "things" and/or the domains. Is
the specifications themselves one of these?
My comment has been that when "OSLC" comes together with the word
"Specifications" it does not sound right.
That happens quite allot since the major product of this effort is indeed -
as said above - specifications: for AM, RM, Core etc.

Regards,
- Uri

From:        Kartik Kanakasabesan <kartik at us.ibm.com>
To:        community at open-services.net
Date:        26/01/2012 03:24 PM
Subject:        Re: [oslc] Oslc-Core post from shani at il.ibm.com requires
approval
Sent by:        community-bounces at open-services.net

Hello Uri,
       with respect to you comment
>>>>>With S == "Specifications", "OSLC Specifications" becomes "Open
Specifications for Lifecycle Collaboration Specifications", which is
confusing again.
I suggest S == "Solutions".

I don't understand the confusion, it has always been OSLC, it was never
intended to be OSLCS as you are referring it. Specifications has never been
part of the nomenclature of the acronym. I believe solution fosters the
notion of a product or a set of products which our community is not
focussed on.
Regards,
Kartik

----- Message from Uri Shani <SHANI at il.ibm.com> on Thu, 26 Jan 2012
11:47:01 +0200 -----

      To: community at open-services.net,                    
          oslc-core at open-services.net                     

 Subject: Re: [oslc] Reconsidering the "S" in OSLC        

Steve,
With S == "Specifications", "OSLC Specifications" becomes "Open
Specifications for Lifecycle Collaboration Specifications", which is
confusing again.
I suggest S == "Solutions".

Regards,
- Uri

From:        Steve K Speicher <sspeiche at us.ibm.com>
To:        community at open-services.net, oslc-core at open-services.net
Date:        25/01/2012 11:27 PM
Subject:        [oslc] Reconsidering the "S" in OSLC
Sent by:        community-bounces at open-services.net

As we all know "S" technically stands for "Services" in OSLC but what are
these "Services"? In doing a little digging, the original intent of the
name was to focus on REST and therefore the word "services" was introduced
to represent "REST services". This has led to a number of problems with
confusion over what kind of services are we talking about. For instance,
there is a natural tendency to map the OSLC use of the word service with
that of SOA (Service Oriented Architecture), which is not at all the
association we want. Will this be a constant problem as OSLC expands into
new domains and 3rd party adoption?  I believe so.

I'm proposing to fix the problem with "S" standing for "Services" and
instead introduce "Specifications". So try this on for size,

 Open Specifications for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC)

Open Specifications is really what we want the focus to be out.  The
technical approach and the basis on Linked Data quite important as well,
but that is supported by the community's development of open
specifications based on that technology.  I believe this is a necessary
change and the right one. It captures what OSLC is really about. Yes,
changing this provides a bit of short term pain but the longer we wait it
will be harder to change and we'll have to continue to deal with the
confusion it introduces.

Of course there are a number of logistics to consider with such a change:

 Fixing names used on websites, articles, charts, etc (like the title
of this Community)
 Considering updating more complicated things like OSLC intro videos
 Considering a better domain name

Do you see this as being an issue worth addressing?
Do you have other suggestions for the letter "S"?
If no big issues, what timeframe would this change occur?  I believe the
sooner the better.  I'd like to have a gauge on this by January 31st.

I (and the community) would be interested in hearing both support for
this, as well as any concerns.  Feel free to reply to this email post
and/or on the forums.

Thanks,
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645

_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
Community at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net

----- Message from oslc-core-request at open-services.net on Thu, 26 Jan 2012
04:47:17 -0500 -----

 Subject: confirm                                      
          4907d56e15ade5a90752a1165389dec06f6ba3af     

If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact,
Mailman will discard the held message.  Do this if the message is
spam.  If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header
with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting
to the list.  The Approved: header can also appear in the first line
of the body of the reply. _______________________________________________
Community mailing list
Community at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
Community at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net