[Oslc-Automation] 2.0 spec question, and links fixed

[John Arwe]

Fixed these links in the live copy: Automation Result links to 
ParameterInstance had hrefs that omitted the R


Question: is the definition of ParameterInstance wrt data types 
ill-defined?

ParameterInstance resource definition table contains this in the 
description of rdf:value:
"The value of the parameter. rdf:datatype SHOULD be used to indicate the 
type of the parameter instance value."

Yet rdf:datatype is only defined in the context of RDF*/XML*, where it 
gives the data type of a typed literal - and that in turn would affect 
comparison results in other RDF specs like SPARQL, so this is not an 
empty/nop question/series of them.

ParameterInstance's resource definition table row for rdf:value leaves the 
value unconstrained; in particular, the value (object of the rdf:value 
triple) need not be a literal at all.  If it is not a literal, e.g. it is 
a resource reference, it is incoherent to talk about the type of said 
(not-) literal.

Clearly we should not be using RDF/XML-specific syntax to put requirements 
on the RDF.  My best guess at the intent from what is written would be:
- If the value type is a RDF literal, then it Should be a RDF typed 
literal. [that buys you rdf:datatype when the media type is 
application/rdf+xml]
- If the value is a resource, ??? I'm guessing no added constraints ???.


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20131030/ba906aaa/attachment-0003.html>