[oslc-core] Fw: what is the actual intent of resource definition table columns?

[Steve K Speicher]

I don't think we are far off from saying the same things.  I tried to 
elaborate a bit below....

> From: Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM at IBMCA
> To: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS, 
> Cc: oslc-core at open-services.net
> Date: 04/20/2012 02:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Fw: what is the actual intent of resource 
> definition table columns?
> 
> Steve,
> 
> My reply is [1]. I think I disagree with you.
> 
> For Example 2, the occurence constraint is one or many. Therefore zero 
is NOT allowed.

I agree. I just misread it as zero-or-more

> For Example 3, Either means that both representations are valid, i.e. 
the 
> resource is "inlined" or just references via URI. Both client and server 

> must be able to handle both representations.

Ok, we are arguing over MUST or MAY on this one.  So I agree that when a 
server advertises its support via the resource shape then it MUST support 
this.  I was taking the original "informative" approach to tables within 
the specification, which I do not think we can treat as a MUST.

> 
> [1] http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/2012-
> April/001299.html
> 
> Regards, 
> 
___________________________________________________________________________ 

> 
> Arthur Ryman 

- Steve