[Oslc-Automation] Proposal to address Ian's Actions 2.0 comment 8.1 - spec profiles

[John Arwe]

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 
something?
In [1], 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 
[action-url]".
Using singular obviates that problem.  I don't see it introducing others 
at first glance.



[1] 
http://open-services.net/wiki/core/Exposing-arbitrary-actions-on-RDF-resources/#Specification-profile-definitions


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/20140911/ad386905/attachment-0003.html>