[oslc-core] Question on oslc.properties

[John Arwe]

[1] appears to say that your "not really useful" result is the minimum 
that a consumer should expect.  I do not read the words as written to 
preclude a provider from providing additional triples in addition to this, 
but the spirit it suggests to me that the minimum is "right".  So if you 
are a client worried about interoperability with a range of 
implementations, that's what you'd have to limit yourself to.
In case the original framers think the intent was to actually prohibit 
anything beyond the minimum, here are the key phrases I pick out:
- MAY... to enable clients to retrieve only selected property values [does 
sound like a prohibition on extra triples]
- ...lets you specify the set of properties to be included in the 
response.  [included, rather than something more limiting, sounds less 
prohibiting]
- ...to include those properties [include again]
Nowhere is a MUST NOT visible.

wrt CBD, since OSLC is not using OWL at all today, does not seem 
especially well bounded -- boils down to "give me all the guts of all 
blank nodes and reified statements, recursively", which seems fairly far 
away from the use case I think oslc.properties is intended for, namely 
allowing clients to tightly control the response size.  So I'm with Arthur 
on that one.

[1] 
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreSpecification?sortcol=table;table=up#Selective_Property_Values

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/attachments/20120320/cdaa6d02/attachment-0003.html>