[oslc-core] Oslc-Core Digest, Vol 11, Issue 24

Tue Dec 14 18:50:56 EST 2010

Martin,

When Jim raised this topic initially, I pointed out that OSLC does not 
currently make any statement about how type URIs should be used outside 
their domain specs, i.e. you should assume that the resource satisfies the 
domain spec. All you can count on is the service, i.e. the resources that 
you get from a service that claims to comply with a domain spec must 
comply with that domain spec. However, it does seem natural that the type 
URIs (and any other property URIs) defined by one domain might be useful 
to other domains or other non-OSLC services. Since these type URIs are in 
the OSLC namespace, it seems appropriate that OSLC should specify their 
intended use, with the usual understanding that no organization can 
restrict how other organizations use URIs.

No, I didn't consider versioning. I assume the versioning rules are 
specified by each domain and so any user of the type URIs should comply 
with that. Yes, this could be a can of worms when a resource has more than 
one type URI since you'd have to specify the versions for each of the 
domains. This is a great topic for the "Mutli-Type" workgroup to discuss.

Regards, 
___________________________________________________________________________ 

Arthur Ryman, PhD, DE

Chief Architect, Project and Portfolio Management
IBM Software, Rational
Markham, ON, Canada | Office: 905-413-3077, Cell: 416-939-5063

From:
Martin Nally <nally at us.ibm.com>
To:
oslc-core at open-services.net
Cc:
oslc-core at open-services.net, oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
Date:
12/10/2010 11:30 AM
Subject:
Re: [oslc-core] Oslc-Core Digest, Vol 11, Issue 24
Sent by:
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net

>> the RDF representation of T SHOULD satisfy the OSLC Domain 
specification
that defines T.

Have you thought about what this means for versioning? Does this mean the
2.0 version of the OSLC specification? All past and future versions? I
think this will open a can of worms. I think we should make the opposite
statement - that when something says it is of some OSLC type, this carries
no guarantees whatever. Caveat emptor.

Best regards, Martin

Martin Nally, IBM Fellow
CTO and VP, IBM Rational
tel: +1 (714)472-2690

  From:       oslc-core-request at open-services.net     

  To:         oslc-core at open-services.net    

  Date:       12/09/2010 12:00 PM   

  Subject:    Oslc-Core Digest, Vol 11, Issue 24    

  Sent by:    oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net     

Send Oslc-Core mailing list submissions to
             oslc-core at open-services.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
             oslc-core-request at open-services.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
             oslc-core-owner at open-services.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Oslc-Core digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Resources that have Multiple rdf:type Values (Arthur Ryman)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:25:40 -0500
From: Arthur Ryman <ryman at ca.ibm.com>
To: Dave <snoopdave at gmail.com>
Cc: oslc-core at open-services.net
Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Resources that have Multiple rdf:type Values
Message-ID:

<OFBE176E2F.3D444635-ON852577F3.007A354B-852577F3.007B3507 at ca.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Dave,

I was pointing out the status quo. However, our desire is that types be
used in a predictable way.

I am recommending that we add an explicit statement to our spec to avoid
"capricious" use of OSLC-defined types. We don't "enforce" this via an
ontology so we need to provide explicit guidance in the Core spec.

Regards,
___________________________________________________________________________

Arthur Ryman, PhD, DE

Chief Architect, Project and Portfolio Management
IBM Software, Rational
Markham, ON, Canada | Office: 905-413-3077, Cell: 416-939-5063

From:
Dave <snoopdave at gmail.com>
To:
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA
Cc:
oslc-core at open-services.net
Date:
12/08/2010 04:56 PM
Subject:
Re: [oslc-core] Resources that have Multiple rdf:type Values

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Arthur Ryman <ryman at ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> At the Core telecon today, Jim raised this topic. We need to continue
the
> discussion. Here is a suggestion for how to handle this:
>
> Any RDF resource representation MAY contain zero or more triples that
have
> a given URI, S, as the subject, and rdf:type as the predicate,  If there
> is a triple of the form (S, rdf:type, T) where T is a type URI defined
by
> some OSLC Domain specification, then the RDF representation of T SHOULD
> satisfy the OSLC Domain specification that defines T.

I thought you argued against this point today, saying that you can
only make that sort of inference when you that a resource is provided
by a service that implements an OSLC specification.

- Dave

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net

End of Oslc-Core Digest, Vol 11, Issue 24
*****************************************

_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net