[oslc-core] [oslc] Reconsidering the "S" in OSLC

[Steve K Speicher]

Upon further review, we will not pursue changing the S.
I have received a wide variety of responses, some shared via mailing list 
and some directly to me. There were a few people who thought it was a good 
idea and be best to change it sooner than later. Then the majority was of 
those who thought that even though there may be better alternatives, it 
wasn't worth the change.
Appreciate all the feedback and I can't predict the future, but I believe 
this topic may not come up for some time.

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

> From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> To: community at open-services.net, oslc-core at open-services.net, 
> Date: 01/25/2012 04:27 PM
> Subject: [oslc] Reconsidering the "S" in OSLC
> Sent by: community-bounces at open-services.net
> 
> As we all know "S" technically stands for "Services" in OSLC but what 
are 
> these "Services"? In doing a little digging, the original intent of the 
> name was to focus on REST and therefore the word "services" was 
introduced 
> to represent "REST services". This has led to a number of problems with 
> confusion over what kind of services are we talking about. For instance, 

> there is a natural tendency to map the OSLC use of the word service with 

> that of SOA (Service Oriented Architecture), which is not at all the 
> association we want. Will this be a constant problem as OSLC expands 
into 
> new domains and 3rd party adoption?  I believe so.
> 
> I'm proposing to fix the problem with "S" standing for "Services" and 
> instead introduce "Specifications". So try this on for size,
> 
>     Open Specifications for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC)
> 
> Open Specifications is really what we want the focus to be out.  The 
> technical approach and the basis on Linked Data quite important as well, 

> but that is supported by the community's development of open 
> specifications based on that technology.  I believe this is a necessary 
> change and the right one. It captures what OSLC is really about. Yes, 
> changing this provides a bit of short term pain but the longer we wait 
it 
> will be harder to change and we'll have to continue to deal with the 
> confusion it introduces.
> 
> Of course there are a number of logistics to consider with such a 
change:
> 
>     Fixing names used on websites, articles, charts, etc (like the title 

> of this Community)
>     Considering updating more complicated things like OSLC intro videos
>     Considering a better domain name
> 
> Do you see this as being an issue worth addressing?
> Do you have other suggestions for the letter "S"?
> If no big issues, what timeframe would this change occur?  I believe the 

> sooner the better.  I'd like to have a gauge on this by January 31st.
> 
> I (and the community) would be interested in hearing both support for 
> this, as well as any concerns.  Feel free to reply to this email post 
> and/or on the forums.
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net
>