[oslc-core] We're more than just Core, we're common too
Steve K Speicher
sspeiche at us.ibm.com
Mon Apr 4 09:29:33 EDT 2011
I think the name "core and common" is a bit too wordy but good for the
overall description.
I'm fine with continuing to call it the "Core WG" but to make it clear the
WG has more than 1 deliverable than the Core spec.
The "Core WG" is responsible for:
- addressing / assisting with common and cross-domain topics
- the handling of these topics may produce:
- recommendation to not spec anything in Core but handle in domain
specs
- produce guidance, like link guidance
- produce specification in the form of a Core spec
- produce specification in the form of a specialized spec (baselines,
reporting, etc).
- it may do so in the form of capability leads or focus areas to
drive these specialized topics
- define how domain specs adapt and conform to these common specs
Not sure we need to refer to these focused and specialized specs as
extensions but could be thought of that way.
Also the term profile seems to just restate what a spec is doing. A spec
says what is required or not, even in the form of referencing other specs.
For example, the QM spec defines its own resource types and which
capabilities of the Core spec are required, optional, etc. Which the Core
spec does the same with other specs,
Thanks,
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
> From: Benjamin Williams <bwilliams at uk.ibm.com>
> To: Arthur Ryman <ryman at ca.ibm.com>
> Cc: oslc-core <oslc-core at open-services.net>,
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> Date: 04/04/2011 06:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-core] We're more than just Core, we're common too
> Sent by: oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
>
> I like this perspective Arthur, but would like to add a definition of
another
> term that is becoming more prevalent (Profile)
>
> Common = Capabilities with potential to be applicable to all domains
> Core = Capabilities necessary for all domains
> Extensions = Optional Capabilities provided to meet given domain
specific requirements
> Profile = A defined set of Core and Extension Capabilities that together
> satisfy a set of use-cases with a given theme (e.g. Reporting, Indexing)
>
>
> Regards
>
> Benjamin Williams
> Rational Reporting Strategy Lead
> Senior Product Manager, Rational Reporting
> IBM Software, Rational
>
> Phone: 44-118 9793107
> E-mail: bwilliams at uk.ibm.com
> Find me on: [image removed]
>
> [image removed]
>
>
>
>
> IBM United Kingdom Limited
> Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU
>
>
>
> From: Arthur Ryman <ryman at ca.ibm.com>
> To: Dave <snoopdave at gmail.com>
> Cc: oslc-core <oslc-core at open-services.net>,
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> Date: 01-04-2011 13:15
> Subject: Re: [oslc-core] We're more than just Core, we're common
too
> Sent by: oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Core mailing list
> Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
>
>
>
>
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Core mailing list
> Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
More information about the Oslc-Core
mailing list