[oslc-core] How will Resource Shapes be provided?

[Scott Bosworth]

Nick's point is a good one - in practice, most resources will have provider
extensions. That said, it would be valuable to providers to have a
documented shape that is a starting point for each OSLC-defined resource.
Perhaps each domain spec include a shape for the resources it defines, and
possibly multiple shapes - e.g. one for creation or one for query? This
would be a big help for services providers.

Dave, not sure if you were recommending that we put "live" shape resources
at specific open-services.net uris? This is an interesting idea, though I'm
not sure we understand the QoS needs and whether the open-services.net
infrastructure could adequately support the performance characteristics
needed. Unless we really want to push on this question, I'd suggest we
document the domain resource shapes in the wiki.


> Nick Crossley
>
>
> Presumably I misunderstood, because I always thought the provider-
> specific properties would be described in the shape - that is, your
> choice 2(b).  I do not consider this a new feature added during
> convergence, since we have always said that providers can add extra
> properties, and we have said that resource shapes are there (amongst
> other things) to help during query - so surely providers should put
> their added properties into the shape.  I fully agree such
> properties must use a different name space.
>
> For this reason, I do not see a good argument for putting resource
> shapes on open-services.net, since such shapes would not be the ones
> linked from any real resources.
>
> Nick.
>
>
>
> From:        Dave <snoopdave at gmail.com>
>
> We expect that OSLC domain specifications will specify Resource Shapes
> for some resources. How will we provide these shapes and can providers
> extend them? Consider these two question:
>
> 1) Should we make OSLC defined shapes available at open-services.net
> or do we expect that providers will each provide these shapes as part
> of their implementation? My opinion: we should do both. Make shapes
> available on open-services.net and recommend that allow providers to
> provide them as well.
>
> 2) If we allow implementations to provide the specified shapes, what
> are the requirements? What changes are implementations allowed to
> make? Can they add new "custom" properties? I have two opinions on
> this one:
> a) Implementation must provide the OSLC Defined Resource shapes
> verbatim with no changes and no additional properties. Resource Shape
> Extensibility is a new feature not in the spec and we shouldn't add
> new features during convergence.
> b) Implementations must not remove or add any properties to an OSLC
> defined resource shape, but may add new custom properties. To prevent
> conflicts, for custom properties, implementations should define
> entirely new properties in an entirely implementation-specific
> namespace.
>
> Thanks,
> - Dave
>


Scott Bosworth | IBM Rational CTO Team | bosworth at us.ibm.com | 919.486.2197
(w) | 919.244.3387(m) | 919.254.5271(f)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/attachments/20100617/936f8c9a/attachment-0003.html>