[oslc-cm] Fw: Proposed new rdf:type URIs for CM 2.0

Steve K Speicher sspeiche at us.ibm.com
Fri Oct 22 14:45:12 EDT 2010 

This has been deferred from CM 2.0.

I have preserved some of the text and concerns in the CM Experimental page 
at: 
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmExperimental#Additional_Type_URIs_for_ChangeR

Thanks,
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645


> From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> To: oslc-cm at open-services.net
> Date: 10/20/2010 09:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Fw:  Proposed new rdf:type URIs for CM 2.0
> Sent by: oslc-cm-bounces at open-services.net
> 
> Hi Scott,
> 
> These are valid concerns.  Unfortunately I haven't seen anyone else 
weigh 
> in on this thread.  Though I have solicited feedback from some 
individuals 
> and I get some similar concerns.  There is a clear alignment with 
> leveraging rdf:types in this way, there isn't much time to adapt this in 

> current implementations and some additional experience in implementation 

> would be desired.
> 
> With that, my proposed resolution to this is:
> - Defer from 2.0 spec
> - Continue to better understand how multi-typed resources should be 
> represented or introduced into the spec
> 
> Please weigh in on this resolution.
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
> 
> 
> > From: Scott Bosworth/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> > To: oslc-cm at open-services.net
> > Date: 10/18/2010 11:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Fw:  Proposed new rdf:type URIs for CM 2.0
> > Sent by: oslc-cm-bounces at open-services.net
> > 
> > Hi Steve, I can see the need and value for these type URI's, but I 
> wonder if 
> > we are at the right point in the process to add them. Also, I'm not 
sure 
> 
> > whether we've provided enough guidance on their appropriate use.
> > 
> > For example, if I'm a client and I queried for ...cm#defect, I would 
> expect to
> > get a list of defects back, yet none of the V2 spec provider 
> implementations 
> > already delivered would reply in such a way today. This might seem 
like 
> a bug 
> > to a client implementation? 
> > 
> > Also, I wonder what the introduction of these types does to 
portability 
> across
> > CM provider implementations, especially since we haven't had much 
> discussion/
> > adoption of their use. If I wanted to query for all resources that 
were 
> some 
> > type of ChangeQuest, I'm thinking I would now have to construct a 
query 
> that 
> > includes all of the possible CM defined types rather than query for 
> rdf:type 
> > of ChangeRequest as I did in the past? I suspect clients written today 

> might 
> > do the latter? If this is the case and new providers make use of the 
new 
> type 
> > uri's, then might some Change Requests be left out of the response? Or 

> are we 
> > implying that the new types are all of the ChangeRequest class and 
would 
> be 
> > included in a query response for resources of type ChangeRequest?
> > 
> > Anyhow, given that the CM V2 spec is in finalization, I wonder if we 
> should 
> > defer introduction of these types until such time when we can explore 
> these 
> > questions and have consumer/provider implementations that support 
their 
> use in
> > the intended way...Scott
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Scott Bosworth | IBM Rational CTO Team | bosworth at us.ibm.com | 
> 919.486.2197(w)
> > | 919.244.3387(m) | 919.254.5271(f)
> > 
> > oslc-cm-bounces at open-services.net wrote on 10/13/2010 03:19:36 PM:
> > 
> > > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> > > To: oslc-cm at open-services.net
> > > Date: 10/13/2010 03:20 PM
> > > Subject: [oslc-cm] Fw:  Proposed new rdf:type URIs for CM 2.0
> > > Sent by: oslc-cm-bounces at open-services.net
> > > 
> > > Per today's WG meeting, I have made this change: 
> > > http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/
> > > CmSpecificationV2#Additional_Type_URIs_for_ChangeR
> > > 
> > > Please raise any issues with this change.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
> > > 
> > > > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> > > > To: oslc-cm at open-services.net
> > > > Date: 10/06/2010 02:52 PM
> > > > Subject: [oslc-cm] Proposed new rdf:type URIs for CM 2.0
> > > > Sent by: oslc-cm-bounces at open-services.net
> > > > 
> > > > When looking at the current CM 2.0 spec, there are a number of 
> "usage" 
> > > > URIs that are used to identify services for a particular usage. It 

> is 
> > > > clear that these would be suitable as values for identifying the 
> > > rdf:type 
> > > > of a oslc_cm:ChangeRequest.
> > > > 
> > > > So I propose that we elevate these usage URIs:
> > > >     *  http://open-services.net/ns/cm#defect - primarily used by 
QM 
> > > tools 
> > > > to report defects in testing.
> > > >     * http://open-services.net/ns/cm#planItem - used by QM and PPM 

> tools 
> > > 
> > > > for associating change requests into plans (project, release, 
> sprint, 
> > > > etc).
> > > >     * http://open-services.net/ns/cm#task - used by QM and PPM 
tools 
> for 
> > > 
> > > > associating change requests into executable and track-able items.
> > > >     * http://open-services.net/ns/cm#requirementsChangeRequest - 
> used by 
> > > 
> > > > RM tools for associating a change request for usage in tracking 
> changes 
> > > to 
> > > > a Requirements resource 
> > > > 
> > > > That would allow service providers to return multiple rdf:type 
> property 
> > > > values when defining a ChangeRequest format representation to 
> respond 
> > > > with.
> > > > 
> > > > Will add to agenda for next meeting.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Oslc-Cm mailing list
> > > > Oslc-Cm at open-services.net
> > > > 
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-cm_open-services.net
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Oslc-Cm mailing list
> > > Oslc-Cm at open-services.net
> > > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-cm_open-services.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > Oslc-Cm mailing list
> > Oslc-Cm at open-services.net
> > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-cm_open-services.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Cm mailing list
> Oslc-Cm at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-cm_open-services.net

More information about the Oslc-Cm mailing list