[oslc-core] [Oslc-Automation] [oslc] OSLC Automation specification preparing to enter finalization phase

[John Arwe]

> However We need a bridge to bring those values forward from 
AutomationRequest  to the end AutomationResult. 
> Right now there is a gap to hold values within AutomationRequest until 
AutomatiuonRequest [JA: assume you meant AResult here]  is created.
If your goal is to convince the WG that one or more spec changes are 
needed, you're going to need to move beyond making simple assertions. 
People [in technical communities] are swayed by evidence, not naked 
assertions.  "We can't do that", in the absence of a convincing "why", is 
hard to distinguish from "we don't Want to do That" or similar variations.
What are the *technical obstacles* in the RQM implementation that prevent 
using each of the alternatives already put forth that are within the spec 
as it exists?
Or have I misunderstood by assuming your point to be a technical problem, 
versus something else?

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/20121016/6b807943/attachment-0003.html>