[Oslc-Automation] Fw: bug in Auto 2.0 parameterDefinition example?

John Arwe johnarwe at us.ibm.com
Tue May 20 12:11:27 EDT 2014


----- Forwarded by John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM on 05/20/2014 12:10 PM -----

From:   Michael F Fiedler/Durham/IBM
To:     John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM at IBMUS
Date:   05/20/2014 11:54 AM
Subject:        Re: bug in Auto 2.0 parameterDefinition example?


I agree it is a bug.

When used in the context of an oslc_auto:parameterDefinition, the 
cardinality of oslc:propertyDefinition becomes zero-or-one instead of 
exactly-one. 

It should be removed from the examples in both the main spec and the 
Sample you cited.

http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/OSLC-Automation-Specification-Version-2.0/#Parameters-Added-During-Execution 

http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/OSLC-Automation-Version-2.0-Samples/#Example-1



Regards,
Mike

Michael Fiedler
IBM Rational Software
fiedler at us.ibm.com
919-254-4170



From:   John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM
To:     Michael F Fiedler/Durham/IBM at IBMUS
Date:   05/20/2014 08:54 AM
Subject:        bug in Auto 2.0 parameterDefinition example?


Just bouncing this off you before bringing it up formally.

http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/OSLC-Automation-Version-2.0-Samples/#Example-1 
includes

      <oslc_auto:parameterDefinition>
            <oslc:name>BuildType</oslc:name>
            <oslc:occurs>http://open-services.net/ns/core#Exactly-one
</oslc:occurs>
            <oslc:propertyDefinition rdf:resource="
http://open-services.net/ns/auto#ParameterDefinition" />
            <oslc:valueType rdf:resource="
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"/>
            <oslc:allowedValue>production</oslc:allowedValue>
            <oslc:allowedValue>personal</oslc:allowedValue>
            <oslc:allowedValue>test</oslc:allowedValue>
      </oslc_auto:parameterDefinition>

In the final spec, since the parameters are all unqualified-name/value 
pairs, we made propertyDefinition optional so I think we just remove the 
highlighted line.
As it stands, it's non-sensical ... the parameter is BuildType, not 
ParameterDefinition.
In a normal resource shape, propertyDefinition 's object is the URI of the 
property being defined.  Since Automation parameters are unqualified, 
non-sensical (and even if it was the case that BuildType had a URI, it 
would not be ParameterDefinition's).

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/20140520/dbecd901/attachment.html>


More information about the Oslc-Automation mailing list