[oslc-core] Adding vocabulary terms to OSLC RM namespace

[Steve K Speicher]

Hi Ian,

Just to follow up on this thread.  This was discussed at the Core WG 
meeting on September 21st [1] regarding this request.

First, this guidance should not be seen as setting any precedence.  Until 
Core WG and Community have defined better process on how to handle this it 
is recommended in future cases to do as Ian has done and ask the Core WG 
for guidance.

The Core WG recommends this core of action:
1. Propose the changes and put out for review (within RM WG and others as 
appropriate).  Similar to a convergence/finalization review cycles to 
ensure enough review and consideration to changes have been made.
2. Notify Core WG when these changes are ready for review and feedback
3. Propose how changes will be documented: errata, spec update, etc and 
get feedback on this.
4. Once appropriate review and issues resolved, put out call for 
finalizing

Key factors that any WG needs to consider when issuing updates to a spec:
1. changes don't break implementations
2. changes provide clarity
3. changes don't expand the scope of the spec

There has already been a next iteration on this work [2]

[1] - http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreMeeting20110921
[2] - 
http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-rm_open-services.net/2011-September/000102.html

Thanks,
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645


> From: Ian Green1 <ian.green at uk.ibm.com>
> To: oslc-core at open-services.net, community 
<community at open-services.net>, 
> Date: 09/07/2011 04:44 PM
> Subject: [oslc-core] Adding vocabulary terms to OSLC RM namespace
> Sent by: oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net
> 
> Hello all 
> 
> The RM workgroup has identified the need for some vocabulary elements 
that 
> have not been specified in any known published vocabulary. 
> 
> In brief, we'd like to extend the OSLC RM vocabulary with two 
predicates: 
> 
>         oslc_rm:elaborates 
>         oslc_rm:specifies 
> 
> The question is: how should the RM workgroup proceed in order that these 

> additional vocabulary terms be published as part of the OSLC family of 
> specifications. 
> 
> We are not considering a change to the 2.0 specification, rather the 
> creation of a new specification, or some formally defined extension, 
say, 
> OSLC RM 2.1, which would additionally document these terms.  It seems 
rather
> onerous to have to go through the full OSLC process for such a change. 
> Considering this to be a new "specification" seems excessive, but it is 
not 
> clear to me that there is any other way for OSLC to release materials. 
> 
> Any views on how to proceed? 
> 
> best wishes,
>    -ian
> 
> ian.green at uk.ibm.com (Ian Green1/UK/IBM at IBMGB)
> Chief Software Architect, Requirements Definition and Management
> IBM Rational
> 
> 
> 

> 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