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

[John Arwe]

> Should        { <plans/1/results/67890> , oslc_auto:executes    , 
<plans/1/future-stop> } be 
>               { <plans/1/results/67890> , 
oslc_auto:executesAutomationPlan  , <plans/1/future-stop> } 
> in 2 places? 

> It's one action pointing to another action, so I didn't use 
executesAutomationPlan as it's not pointing to an AutomationPlan. Other 
than that it's semantically very similar. 

but but but... the object of both triples is identical: 
<plans/1/future-stop>
so either the second one is making a false assertion (which is possible in 
general but not what we'd want in an example showing 'the right way'), or 
your answer is wrong.


> The only other issues is do we need to add something so that future 
extensions can prevent consumers that are used to the "no configuration 
needed" case as the only option from using future 
A non-normative note warning that future specs might introduce this case 
seems friendly.
I was not stumping for removal BTW, just in effect noting that just 
because a dialog is offered does not mean that the request Requires more 
config.  The dialog could just offer to change the template-supplied 
values ("defaults"?), and if the user does nothing aside from submit then 
the dialog made no net changes.  I'm fine with reluctant removal.

The rest seems fine in concept, I'll read the updates "later".

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/20140129/48573257/attachment-0003.html>