[oslc-core] Better name for OSLC indexing profile [ATTACHMENT REMOVED]
michael.loeffler at gm.com
michael.loeffler at gm.com
Thu Mar 31 17:00:25 EDT 2011
Hi All,
Just to toss in another outsider's viewpoint, the resources we are
describing here feel a lot like a typical database "transaction log" to
me. Maybe that word has a place in the naming, just a random thought...
---
Mike Loeffler - GPD Systems Engineering IT
GM IT Innovation Team
From: Frank Budinsky <frankb at ca.ibm.com>
To: Jim des Rivieres <Jim_des_Rivieres at ca.ibm.com>
Cc: oslc-core <oslc-core at open-services.net>
Date: 03/31/2011 04:28 PM
Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Better name for OSLC indexing profile
[ATTACHMENT REMOVED]
Sent by: oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
Hi all,
I'd like to finish this discussion soon, if we can. The discussion so far
has helped us articulate exactly what this "profile" is, even if we
haven't been able to come up with a good name yet. Let me try to summarize
and then offer a couple of new name suggestions.
This profile requires a service provider to implement the following three
capabilities:
1. Expose its complete set of "public resources". By public, we mean
all the resources that the service provider does not consider to be
internal implementation artifacts (not to be confused with anything to do
with access permission's). At the previous WG call, the word "published
resources" was suggested as a good way to describe these resources.
2. Provide a change log that lists change events for the set of
published resources in (1), as well as creation events for new resources
that would have been included in (1).
3. Provide access to security information (ACLs) for the published
resources, to allow a client to mirror the access rules of the underlying
tools.
In a more concise form, we can describe this as:
A service provider must publish its contents (resources), including change
information (because the content is dynamic) and access control
information.
Jim used the word "Active", below, to capture the dynamic aspect. Sticking
with that, I would suggest the following name for the profile:
1. Active Content Publishing
2. Content Publishing
Personally, I like #2, "Content Publishing Profile". I think it's short
enough and I don't think "Active" is not needed because it's obvious that
a service provider's contents is changing/active. A service provider
should just be asked to "publish its contents", which means enumerate the
resources, including change information to allow clients to keep up to
date with the changing publication.
Please send me your votes or a better suggestion if you can think of one.
Thanks,
Frank.
Jim des Rivieres---03/24/2011 01:51:07 PM---I don't have as much a problem
as some with using the driving use case in the name. I believe in ca
From:
Jim des Rivieres/Ottawa/IBM
To:
Frank Budinsky/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA
Cc:
oslc-core <oslc-core at open-services.net>
Date:
03/24/2011 01:51 PM
Subject:
Re: [oslc-core] Better name for OSLC indexing profile
I don't have as much a problem as some with using the driving use case in
the name. I believe in calling a spade a bloody shovel [OED], even if
shovels can be used for other things.
If I step way, way, back and imagine that the particular protocol we are
specifying here catches like wildfire in the open web (think Atom or
OAuth), the question I ask is what name would we like it to be known by.
Something that the world can latch onto, and have a chance of keeping it
straight in their minds amid myriad other Internal protocols.
I believe the main reason that apps will be signing up to be providers is
that they are sitting on some data resources that they would like to
expose in an RDF format so that other apps would be able to build
queryable indexes from. Any old app can expose resources with RDF
representations without supporting this new protocol. So the RDF by itself
is not sufficient. And this protocol says nothing about the indexes that
may get built. Crucially, this protocol is about exposing information in
RDF form in a way that support someone else to build and maintain an
RDF-based index. And its not that interesting if the data is static -
you'd have no need of a change log. So being a dynamic source also seems
important (#1-#5 all touch on this aspect.
So how about the "Active RDF Index Source" protocol. And that when we talk
about a OSLC domain service provider, we could talk about what it would
mean for them to support the "Active RDF Index Source Profile", which
would entail implementing the provider role of the Active RDF Index Source
protocol, and providing specified enties in OSLC service, service
provider, and service provider catalogs that make its Active RDF Index
Sources discoverable.
Regards,
Jim
[OED] See entry in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_call_a_spade_a_spade
Frank Budinsky---03/24/2011 11:34:47 AM---As discussed in the meeting
yesterday, I've been using the term "Indexing Profile" (see http://open-
From:
Frank Budinsky/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA
To:
oslc-core <oslc-core at open-services.net>
Date:
03/24/2011 11:34 AM
Subject:
[oslc-core] Better name for OSLC indexing profile
Sent by:
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
As discussed in the meeting yesterday, I've been using the term "Indexing
Profile" (see http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/IndexingProposals for
details) to describe the capabilities that MUST be provided by a service
provider to support indexing (e.g., an enumeration of resources, a Change
Log, etc). It was pointed out that, although indexing is the primary
motivating use case, the profile we're talking about is really more
general and should therefore have a more general name.
What this profile really provides is the capabilities required by a client
that wants to see content and track changes to content of a service
provider. Some suggested names for this profile are:
1. Observer Profile
2. Notification Profile
3. Change Log Profile
4. Content Tracking Profile
5. Service Tracking Profile
The first 3 seem not to cover the "enumeration of resources" part of the
profile (and other things like security, which will also be part of the
profile), so my vote so far would be for #4 or #5.
Please let me know which of these name you prefer or if you have a better
suggestion.
Thanks,
Frank.
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net wrote on 03/23/2011 11:39:32 AM:
> [image removed]
>
> [oslc-core] Continuing Change Log and Baselines discussions
>
> Dave
>
> to:
>
> oslc-core
>
> 03/23/2011 11:41 AM
>
> Sent by:
>
> oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
>
> We had a good discussion of Change Log issues today, thanks to Frank
> for leading, but we did not finish. You can find my notes from the
> meeting on the agenda page here:
>
> http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreMeeting20110323
>
> Since we did not finish the discussion, I'd like to schedule a
> follow-up meeting next week:
>
> OSLC Core WG Meeting: Change Log follow-up Meeting
> March 30, 2011 - 10AM US/ET
>
> I would also like to propose that we meet the week after that to
> follow up on the Baselines discussion:
>
> OSLC Core WG Meeting: Baselines follow-up Meeting
> April 6, 2011 - 10AM US/ET
>
> Nick: does April 6 work for you?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
This attachment was removed from this location in this message.
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 335
This attachment was removed from this location in this message.
Name: ecblank.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 254
_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
Nothing in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.
Confidentiality Note: This message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination or other use, or taking of any action in reliance upon this message by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete it from your computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/attachments/20110331/f70b63c2/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Oslc-Core
mailing list