[Oslc-Automation] Actions 2.0: additional provider constraints reference from Automation Request IP to Fixed Body IP appears to be dangling

[John Arwe]

Nothing so well thought out, sorry.
I loathe underscores is all, and (being a touch typist) once I got to 
oslc-auto my fingers did the rest on their own.
Since Core Actions was its own spec, I felt unconstrained by Automation's 
established convention.  But it's not a religious issue, if the WG favors 
cross-spec consistency I can change it.  I was careful to be consistent 
within each spec (domain, actually).

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario


Martin P Pain <martinpain at uk.ibm.com> wrote on 03/20/2014 05:39:30 AM:

> [2]'s resource shape: is there any particular reason you used "oslc-
> automation", not "oslc_auto" as is used here: http://open-
> services.net/wiki/automation/OSLC-Automation-Specification-
> Version-2.1/#Namespaces 
> 
> Given that this return value is not in a standard RDF syntax, the 
> exact prefix we use in the spec is (I believe) the exact prefix that
> the implementations will need to use. (This may have been taken into
> account in your decision, I don't know).
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20140320/6f2fbba9/attachment-0003.html>