[Oslc-Automation] Availability spec: "At least one binding" text (was: First draft Availability Vocabulary/ public holiday in Germany)

[John Arwe]

> with the Actions spec, which is not a safe assumption. Or we could say "
> when it is an oslc:Action (such as an oslc-
> availability:ConditionAction), it will have at least one binding 
> since it is currently available". I think this would capture more of
> the reason why it will have a binding, but has the downside of 
> adding more text.

This seems really really simple then - add the text.
A year from now, it will be a miracle if anyone involved remembers the 
Why.  Yet that's where the long term value is, when it comes time to 
change the spec or when an implementer asks why it's that way... it helps 
people assess the effects, good and bad, and understand the degrees of 
freedom.
If the spec is successful in any sense, readers who were NOT involved in 
its drafting will outnumber those who were.  Give them what they need; if 
the new text is particularly intrusive in-context for some reason, put it 
elsewhere (appendix, whatever) and link to it.

By the same token, you could cite the source for the "has a binding" 
assertion... by linking to its source... if that's less intrusive (or do 
both; whatever).  That's what specs in standards bodies routinely do; look 
at any IETF RFC, OASIS, or W3C spec.


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20140716/9cc54de6/attachment-0003.html>