[oslc-core] "One last" change to OSLC Core representations

[Steve K Speicher]

I read Samit's comment a bit different.  Proposing a MUST requirement is 
on domain specification writers to identify the representations needed.

Either way, I'm not sure the core should put MUST requirements on domain 
specs but provide the guidance on handling representations.  So I agree 
with using the term RECOMMENDED (or SHOULD) instead of "expected to" as it 
may be more appropriate.

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


> From: Dave <snoopdave at gmail.com>
> To: oslc-core <oslc-core at open-services.net>
> Date: 07/26/2010 10:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-core] "One last" change to OSLC Core representations
> Sent by: oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> 
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Samit Mehta <samit.mehta at us.ibm.com> 
wrote:
> > I would recommend stronger language for the following paragraph:
> >
> >> OSLC domain specifications are expected to (1) require the
> >> representations needed for the specific scenarios that they are
> >> addressing...
> >
> > Maybe something like:
> >
> > "OSLC domain specifications MUST (1) require the representations ..."
> >
> > I do agree with your argument, but I am concerned that it could put a
> > service consumer (client) at a disadvantage if a domain spec ends up
> > without a firm requirement for at least one representation for each
> > scenario.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback Samit.
> 
> Having a "firm requirement for at least one representation" does help
> clients, but we are not there today in our implementations. Today,
> OSLC implementations have and will continue to have for some time
> limitations in their abilities to provide and accept RDF/XML. Changing
> to SHOULD acknowledges fact and still points the way forward.
> 
> The term SHOULD is actually a pretty strong requirement, here's whatit 
means:
> 
> SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
> 
> I think SHOULD is the right level of requirement for 2010. And, I
> suspect that all OSLC implementations this year will support RDF/XML
> to the best of their abilities -- so you will get what you want even
> without the MUST.
> 
> Thanks,
> - Dave
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Core mailing list
> Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net