[Oslc-Automation] OSLC Actions: Action for resource that does not yet exist: worked example

[John Arwe]

> However, we could say something like that about the state, but I'm 
> not exactly sure what... or even if that is true. Perhaps it "MAY 
> not" have the desired effect. 

I'm not asserting that we need to.  "Is it a gap?" is simply a 
due-diligence question.

Remember that the thread-let started with your statement:

> > The client cannot change its oslc_auto:state to make it eligible, as

I was pointing out, by Devil's Advocate example, that such a strong 
reading of the spec is not IMO supported by the spec's current contents. 
Now that you seem to be agreeing that "weaker" readings are possible, viz

> .... If providers want to allow non-
> eligible requests to eligible ones they can, but there's no call for

then our interpretations are compatible.  I don't feel any particular need 
to explicitly call out this alternative in the spec.  As you correctly 
point out, we have no in-scope (or other, for that matter) scenarios 
pushing for it so in a sense its speculative anyway.  As long as the spec 
does not go out of its way to prohibit new behaviors that we might add in 
the future, "good enough" for me.


Fine on the other topics; thread closed, from my perspective.


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/20140204/c0654aa0/attachment-0003.html>