[oslc] Reconsidering the "S" in OSLC

[Kartik Kanakasabesan]

Hi Uri,
          My comments tagged as  >>>>


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

>>>> When tools collaborate they need to use clear vocabulary between them 
to exchange information,so that way I agree with your assertion that S is 
the "things". The "things" in this case are the specifications which 
enable collaboration in a REST environment. Let us just assume that we did 
not take the effort to specify the different resources and how they are 
exposed. If everyone were to design their own way of exposing resources, 
we would end up with same situation we are today with proprietary API's. 
Which is why the specification development at OSLC is a industry 
initiative which is producing specs. 

Regards,
Kartik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/community_open-services.net/attachments/20120131/5ad6b56b/attachment-0003.html>