[oslc-core] Asset Management specification finalization

[Olivier Berger]

Hi.

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:56:09 -0600, Sheehan Anderson <sheehan at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Thanks for the input. The introduction originally had wording specific
> to software assets, but we have purposefully made it more generic
> based on workgroup feedback. The issue is that an asset may have
> different meanings to different providers/consumers. Depending on who
> you ask an asset may be the final output from a software development
> process, physical hardware, final documentation, etc.  The difference
> between an asset and "stuff" with "things" is that an asset has value
> (reference or reuse) across a broad audience and needs to be monitored
> or maintained.
> 

OK.

Still, what's unclear to me is how much such Assets can be different
from the rest of the resources that are modeled by other OSLC
specifications.

For instance, if a tool implementor, say a bug tracking system vendor,
didn't read about OSLC-CM, and they discover OSLC Assets, then they may
choose to implement it... which may be coherent with their business case
(bug reports having value, whatever).

But my own understanding is that being compliant with OSLC-CM would be a
better priority for them.

Now... maybe a tool can implement both OSLC-CM and OSLC Assets at the
same time, whenever a particular bug report can both have a value and a
priority, thanks to the inherent extensibility of RDF.

> I think you have a valid point about the introduction being hard to
> grasp on a first read and it would be useful for us to provide some
> short tangible examples. I'll write up both a software asset and
> hardware asset example so that the reader understands the benefits of
> assets/artifacts in concrete terms that fit into their domain.
> 

Thanks.

Looking forward to reading the new introduction.

Whenever I understand it better, maybe I'll try to investigate the
similarities between OSLC Assets and ADMS [0]. Both entered
finalization, and I somehow wonder how these could be made
interoperable, given my interest in ADMS.F/OSS [1] which aims at
modeling project descriptions in FLOSS catalogs.

Best regards,

[0] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/adms/home
[1] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/adms_foss/home
-- 
Olivier BERGER 
http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8
Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)