[oslc-cm] Proposed language / modifications to "Range" definition

[Steve K Speicher]

Last core meeting I took an action to propose some changes to domain 
specifications on how "Range" should be used for relationship properties 
that were not "closed".  Where not "closed" implies that  other kinds of 
resources could potentially live at the other end of the URI reference. 
The need was to make sure that consumers knew that the intent of the 
relationship was to loosely coupled and open, therefore encouraging 
clients to be flexible in handling the de-refencing of these relationship 
URIs.

Here is a sample of the change for the CM spec [1] and the 
relatedChangeRequest relationship property:

New proposed changes::
        Range: any 
        Description: This relationship is loosely coupled and has no 
specific meaning. The value of this property MAY refer to another 
oslc_cm:ChangeRequest resource. 

Original:
        Range: oslc_cm:ChangeRequest
        Description: This relationship is loosely coupled and has no 
specific meaning. 

Note: I made the change in the spec [1] for only the one property

Looking for feedback on this proposed change.

[1] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2

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