[Oslc-Automation] Action resources - implementation patterns

[John Arwe]

> > > > 2: In the final paragraph of [1], a statement is made: "However, 
as 
> Although I admit this is quite a complex sentence, so perhaps we 
> just drop it all in favour of the earlier sentence "Implementations 

The problem with the older version is that it's obviously wrong at the 
surface level of abstraction, even if it's correct at another.  If I have 
2 STOP actions, they *are* semantically equivalent at a high level - 
that's exactly what it means when they both say type=STOP (so that's where 
the old stmt is wrong).  Where it's right is that they're *only* "as 
equivalent" as those types say they are, and no more.  Since types rarely 
talk about side effect, blah blah, they're not semantically *identical* 
even if at some level of abstraction they are semantically equivalent.

> > > 11. In the "what are actions?" section [13] it now says "without 

OK so we flog this one a bit more.  Maybe bullet list(s) or simple table 
with "n2k/don't n2k" colunmns.  Until we settle on something, maybe a bit 
of red "we're still working on the wording here"?  There's enough threads 
flowing now that with everyone else back from vacation I worry about 
losing things more.  Heaven knows I have a harder time concentrating.

> > > 13. Under "instructions for executing currently available actions" 
> How about something like: "A consumer executes an action by ...

works for me.


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/20140107/f5f24266/attachment-0003.html>