[oslc-core] Some Topics for Discussion Today

[Arthur Ryman]

Olivier,

Thx for the comments. I agree to all except the comment on discovery. The 
Shape resource was introduced to enable reporting scenarios, e.g. driving 
a generic query builder. Then other uses were identifier, e.g. creation of 
resources. 

Each domain spec could provide standard Shape resources. This just makes 
the natural language spec more machine-understandable. Implementations 
that support additional properties would have to extend those.

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
Twitter | Facebook | YouTube







From:
Olivier Berger <olivier.berger at it-sudparis.eu>
To:
oslc-core at open-services.net
Date:
05/27/2010 09:39 AM
Subject:
Re: [oslc-core] Some Topics for Discussion Today
Sent by:
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



Hi.

Le mercredi 26 mai 2010 à 08:59 -0400, Arthur Ryman a écrit :
> 1. I've been digging deeper into OWL and there does appear to be a way 
to 
> express the kind of information we are putting in our Shape resources, 
> e.g. cardinality. The OWL way is somewhat more complex - it involves 
class 
> restrictions. Our Shape approach is easier for clients to handle. I 
think 
> we should at least describe the semantics of Shape in terms of OWL so we 

> are compatible. We may be able to regard Shape as a simplified form for 
> the equivalent OWL.
> 

+1

Even if OWL is more complex, it is a widely used standard (I guess) at
least in the Semantic Web communities (maybe not in ALM implementors
communities ?)... so we may be having some kind of disclaimers above
Shapes specs like : "ok, fellows, if you know OWL already, skip this and
come back only when you'll try to implement consumers : the real truth
about OSLC is next chapter " ;-)

Again, as Shapes look to me very much like reinventing some wheel
standardized elsewhere, I think it is very much important to not so much
tighten the rest of OSLC to it (at least in the presentation of the
specs).

OSLC is great as it tries and propose a reference standard for ALM
interoperability.
I think learning OSLC should be quite straightforward (at least for the
mandatory domain-related aspects), for fear to see it somehow dismissed
by the Shapes introduction (for OWL addicts) and it's added complexity
(meta / reification discussions, etc. when one only want to know how to
spell "bug status" in OSLC), while the important thing is the rest of
the standard : how to standardize the common properties of resources
exchanged by tools.

Real standardization for common properties and wider adoption looks more
important to me than discovery of resources, for the time being.

Enough ranting ;)

Best regards,
-- 
Olivier BERGER <olivier.berger at it-sudparis.eu>
http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8
Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)


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