[oslc-core] Current best practice on links - always define inverse or wait for scenario to arise?

[Arthur Ryman]

John,

I think workgroups should apply judgement. Defining an inverse for every 
relation might be overkill. Equally, requiring a concrete use case for 
every inverse is also overkill. If it seems likely that the inverse would 
be useful, then the workgroup should define it.

Regards, 
___________________________________________________________________________ 

Arthur Ryman 

DE, PPM & Reporting Chief Architect
IBM Software, Rational 
Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) 





From:
John Arwe <johnarwe at us.ibm.com>
To:
oslc-core at open-services.net
Date:
11/16/2011 01:46 PM
Subject:
[oslc-core] Current best practice on links - always define inverse or wait 
for scenario to arise?
Sent by:
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



We had a recent case of this with RM, where they wanted to add new 
vocabulary to define some relationship inverses that they discovered were 
needed after finalization. 
For new specs and for new links in existing vocabularies, when the 
expected target in the "forward" direction is an OSLC-defined resource, is 
there a current consensus on whether it is better to define an inverse 
link in advance of a concrete scenario versus requiring clients to query 
for that information and/or approaching the relevant working group to 
extend the domain vocabulary with the inverse only after someone 
articulates a concrete scenario? 
Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario 
_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net