[oslc-core] We're more than just Core, we're common too

[Arthur Ryman]

Dave,

I think it's more fitting to call all these efforts "Common" since they 
are domain-independent, and within that have "Core" and "Extensions". The 
"Core" features are what all domains should implement. The "Extensions" 
are what domains optionally implement, depending on their requirements. We 
probably feel that all domains should implement all Extensions, but that 
would raise the barrier to entry. The Core should be kept small to promote 
incremental adoption of OSLC.

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:
oslc-core <oslc-core at open-services.net>
Date:
03/31/2011 04:09 PM
Subject:
[oslc-core] We're more than just Core, we're common too
Sent by:
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



I was doing a little cleanup and reorganization of the main OSLC wiki
page, the one that lists workgroups, and that sparked a thought or
two.

There was a grouping there and a page for "Common Architecture," a
page that existed before we had a Core workgroup. Core was listed in
both the grouping and the page as a part of common, along with
Reporting. The charter of the Core workgroup is to define a Core
specification and guidance on common concerns, so common is part of
Core. So, to clear up confusion, I renamed the grouping to be "Core
and Common concerns," removed the Common Architecture page and added
the common efforts that we have ongoing to the Core Workgroup page:
Change Log, Reporting and Baselines.

Change Log, Reporting and Baselines are not part of the Core v2
specification, but they fall in the scope of the Core workgroup.
Perhaps we should rename the Core workgroup to Core and Common
Workgroup to make this more clear, but I don't want to have to go
renaming mailing lists, wiki pages and so on.

   http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCore

Thoughts? Should we rename or stay with simple "Core Workgroup"? Are
things more clear now, or did I make things worse?

Thanks,
- Dave

-- 
David M. Johnson
OSLC Core Workgroup Lead
IBM Rational Software

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