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

[Steve K Speicher]

Hi Jim,

You have good points, I may write it slightly different.  By indicating it 
as "MAY" it implies that clients should be prepared to handle any kind of 
resource.

Description: The target resource is a related change request. The 
target resource MAY be another oslc_cm:ChangeRequest resource.

Is this better?

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


Jim des Rivieres <Jim_des_Rivieres at ca.ibm.com> wrote on 09/24/2010 
02:36:22 PM:

> From: Jim des Rivieres <Jim_des_Rivieres at ca.ibm.com>
> To: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> Cc: oslc-cm at open-services.net, oslc-core at open-services.net
> Date: 09/24/2010 02:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Proposed language / modifications to "Range" 
definition
> 
> > "Description: This relationship is loosely coupled and has no 
> > specific meaning. The value of this property MAY refer to another 
> > oslc_cm:ChangeRequest resource."
> 
> This wording is ambiguous. It can be read as denying that the 
relationship 
> itself has any meaning, instead of the target resource being 
unconstrained 
> to any particular type.
> 
> Also, the name of the property strongly suggests that there is some 
> expectation of the type of the target resource.  To capture this 
> expectation while making it clear to consumers that they cannot count on 

> it, you could say something like:
> 
> Description: The target resource is a related change request. While the 
> target resource SHOULD be another 
> oslc_cm:ChangeRequest resource, the target resource MAY be any kind of 
> resource.
> 
> Regards,
> Jim des Rivieres | IBM Rational Software | (613) 356-5015
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> Steve K Speicher <sspeiche at us.ibm.com>
> To:
> oslc-core at open-services.net
> Cc:
> oslc-cm at open-services.net
> Date:
> 09/24/2010 01:59 PM
> Subject:
> [oslc-core] Proposed language / modifications to "Range" definition
> Sent by:
> oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Core mailing list
> Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
> 
> 
>