[Oslc-Automation] [oslc-cm] Some comments on Actions spec (most from CM perspective)
Steve K Speicher
sspeiche at us.ibm.com
Thu Feb 27 11:20:39 EST 2014
> From: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM at IBMUS
> To: oslc-automation at open-services.net
> Cc: oslc-cm at open-services.net
> Date: 02/26/2014 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] [Oslc-Automation] Some comments on Actions spec
(most
> from CM perspective)
> Sent by: "Oslc-Cm" <oslc-cm-bounces at open-services.net>
>
> > Comment on section [2]
> > I'm not sure why the domain specific types are here. Seems like
> > something that would be in CM spec. In fact, we probably wouldn't
> > define a oslc:StateTransitionAction but instead just call it
> > oslc:Action. Seems like the parent class is extraneous. Clients
> > will be looking for oslc_cm:targetState to determine which action to
pick.
> > What value is there in having this separate type?
>
> Personally, I've been dubious about oslc:StateTransitionAction for a
while
> but I've been letting the rest of it settle a bit before calling it out.
> "Dubious" simply because all write requests... generic PUT, PATCH, POST,
etc
> but also all actions which a purist might argue act like POSTs (in terms
of
> their effect) with some hypermedia decoration for client discovery...
are/
> might be state transition requests. It's so general that I am and have
been
> unclear what it adds beyond oslc:Action; it is entirely possible that
such a
> difference exists and simply has not been articulated such that I can
grasp
> it, but that's my current state.
>
That was my original comment [1] and Martin seemed to acknowledge its
limited usefulness [2].
If I were a CM client, looking for a particular Action, I wouldn't look
for rdf:type at all. I would navigate oslc:action from a change request,
or if it had some oslc_cm: domain predicate, to a resource which had the
properties I was interested in: namely oslc_[cm|auto]:desiredState to pick
the right action and other terms to know where and what to POST. The
object of :desiredState tells me all I need to know which one to pick.
So from a client/server interaction, I don't need the sub type. From a
query/reporting point of view, I don't have any queries I can think of.
Brainstorming on it: show me all in-progress change requests that have
oslc:StateTransitionActions. Not sure I see a use case or need for it.
Seems like oslc:Action and :desiredState would be enough. I see you have
oslc:UpdateAction, which doesn't really help the CM clients either (as not
sure I'd even look at the type unless I REALLY wanted to validate
everything I fetch).
So I've propose to remove oslc:StateTransitionAction from the Action spec.
It could be added back later if a clear need arises.
[1] -
http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/2014-January/000635.html
[2] -
http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/2014-January/000636.html
Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
http://open-services.net
> Turning it around: if I have some action Foo that I want to expose, I
would
> hope that the type definition would tell me whether or not I should be
using
> oslc:StateTransitionAction amongst the types. If, in effect, all
actions
> are of types oslc:StateTransitionAction and oslc:Action, that's evidence
> that they're redundant. If we find a scenario where clients cannot run
the
> scenario without oslc:StateTransitionAction (which is different than
saying
> it Can be used), that would be evidence that it's really needed and
might
> lead to a description that distinguishes it from :Action.
> Best Regards, John
>
> Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Cm mailing list
> Oslc-Cm at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-cm_open-services.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20140227/99da3298/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Oslc-Automation
mailing list