[Oslc-Automation] [oslc-cm] Some comments on Actions spec (most from CM perspective)
John Arwe
johnarwe at us.ibm.com
Tue Mar 4 17:27:38 EST 2014
> Either that second action needs rdf:type oslc:StateTransitionAction or
it is stating a side-effect not an intention/desire.
I was not going all the way there, but any illumination the question
caused I'll happily accept credit for ;-) Could have been that there
was/is another reason for its absence that I just didn't see.
If it *is* added to the second, then the type alone simply is no longer a
distinguishing characteristic, so the narrative that the client uses it in
one case but not the other falls apart. If the just-deconstructed
narrative was the only justification for defining that action type, it
appears we can define less without losing the ability to support the
scenario - and that's what we should do, if true.
Just because I was reading in some "intentful" connotation, means neither
that doing so is/was correct nor that distinguishing between intent-ful
and side-effect in prose is feasible in any reliable way. It seems we all
agree *that's* a lost cause. It seems likely to me that the distinction
is based on how the client is using it, just like the template discussion.
Hence, running Steve's logic forward, a client that just wants to suspend
the work item could choose to look only at desiredState, and since (in
this example) it has a choice, it can choose any of them. A client that
understands all the types involved could use them to break the
desiredState tie; a client that only knows oslc: types has no information
it can use to prefer one vs the other, and will do whatever it's coded to
do (punt to an error flow, pick according to some unspecified algorithm,
ask a user, etc). Maybe it prefers Actions whose type set it fully
understands, in which case the (present but opaque) extra type on the
second means it avoids that choice. We can't stop this case from
happening, that I can see, without abandoning the duck-typing (which is
what pattern recognition rules boil down to) that we're relying on for
flexibility and extensibility. The client code either understands all of
the content, or it doesn't, and in either case it has to choose if/how to
proceed.
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/20140304/b365d33f/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Oslc-Automation
mailing list