[oslc-core] Conformance statement about resource definition tables in specs - Issue-43

[Steve K Speicher]

Regarding Issue-43 [1,2]...To follow up with recent conversations on this, 
I took an action last meeting to "net it out" and make a high-level 
blanket statement to see who objects to it.

Specs, whether domain or core defined, have a resource definition tables 
that have some statements about what predicates exist for certain resource 
types and some constraints (read-only, occurs, range).
These tables should be thought of as SHOULD requirements.  Meaning, 
implementations may good reason to diverge from these definitions (such as 
making a predicate's object writable or occurs to be zero-or-one instead 
of only-one).  Of course if those implementations support resource shapes, 
these shapes must reflect this.

Just putting it out there to see if there is any objection with this.

[1] - http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreV2Issues #43
[2] - 
http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/2012-June/001335.html
Thanks,
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645