[Oslc-Automation] Proposal to address Ian's Actions 2.0 comment 8.1 - spec profiles
johnarwe at us.ibm.com
Thu Sep 11 13:28:48 EDT 2014
This is the one about profile adherence ... if an Action has n>1 bindings,
how many bindings have to meet the IP's constraints in order to adhere to
(be recognized as using) the spec profile.
On the surface this looks incredibly simple to fix - am I missing
In , I think we just shift the language from Action bindings (plural)
to singular - and that's my proposal.
I think it's true throughout that the intention was that each binding
satisfies 1:* interaction patterns, and the constraints/recognition tests
apply to each binding.
Using the "royal we" style is ambiguous since readers can wonder if the
[set of] bindings is "bindings in general" or "the bindings on Action
Using singular obviates that problem. I don't see it introducing others
at first glance.
Best Regards, John
Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages
Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Oslc-Automation