[oslc-core] Creation of new OSLC Shape Resources?

[Dave]

Hi Ian,

I'm not totally sure where you are going with this email, are you
proposing an alternative to the OSLC AM Link Type registry concept?
Are you defending that concept against the notion that Resource Shapes
are good enough for conveying link type information? Something else?


On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Ian Green1 <ian.green at uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> DOORS and RRC systems have a customizable, user-defined type system.  As
> OSLC RM providers, they surface these types as OSLC Resource Shapes.  Other
> applications commonly do the same.
>
> Whilst OSLC shape allows providers to describe the shape of their resources,
> I'm not sure that it allows OSLC collaborators to agree on a vocabulary for
> linking (I'm picking on linking, but the same goes for other uses of shape).

Playing devil's advocate: it could work like this: users create new
"link types" via the UI of a product, that product includes those link
types in the Resource Shapes for creation, query and update.


>  A basic requirement for this is to be able to create new resource shapes.

Why does OSLC need to support creation of new Resource Shapes? Users
create new link types via the UI and the system reflects those new
link types in the shapes it provides.


> I wonder how many OSLC implementations are capable of accepting a resource
> whose shape is described by a resource hosted at another authority?
> Without such provision, collaborators will tend to replicate resource shape
> resources (using oslc:describes and oslc:propertyDefinition to identify
> those shapes across providers).  If this approach is followed, there is a
> risk that the synchronization of changes to those shape resources will break
> and inconsistencies will result.

Assuming this is all about link types, wouldn't the users of this
integrated system be responsible for ensuring that a consistent set of
link types are used across all of installed products that make up the
system?

- Dave



> Today I don't think that the OSLC specifications cater for the basic need to
> create new resource shapes;  I do think that the specifications admit a
> single resource shape to be used to describe the shape of resources in
> multiple distinct providers.  Is this the right way to proceed?  (For
> example, is the central shape model realistic given its affinity to the
> data?)
>
> As far as shape creation goes, does anyone see a problem with a creation
> factory that allows new resource shapes to be POSTed?  (The same for query
> and the delegated UIs.)
>
> best wishes,
>    -ian
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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
>
>