[oslc-core] today's meeting - authoring extensions vs shapes

[John Arwe]

Adding them to shapes would not be my first choice, they're fairly 
authoring-specific ... useful for converting to wiki format.
I have 3 now:
- section title (common properties, domain blah extensions) for within 
wiki table, since we like to partition common from domain adds
- row order within the wiki table/section (can probably use seq for this 
in the end)
- For resource ref rows: "It is likely that the target of the link is an 
XYZ, but this is not guaranteed to be the case."  Give it the XYZ value, 
and the code will add the boilerplate containing it to the desc.
If you're dead convinced any of that belongs in shapes-proper I'm unlikely 
to object.  The 3rd one is closest to being a yes there, but it still only 
occurs in the wiki/spec tables I think.  Concrete implementations I'm 
guessing would change the Range=Any to be Range=XYZ if that's what they 
find useful as the link target, but if experience shows otherwise who am I 
to argue.

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario




From:   Arthur Ryman <ryman at ca.ibm.com>
To:     John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM at IBMUS, 
Cc:     oslc-core at open-services.net, "Oslc-Core" 
<oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net>
Date:   11/06/2013 10:30 AM
Subject:        Re: [oslc-core] today's meeting



John,

Are the extension properties candidates for the Shapes spec?

Regards, 
___________________________________________________________________________ 


Arthur Ryman 

DE, Chief Architect, Reporting &
Portfolio and Strategy Management
IBM Software, Rational 

Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) 





From:   John Arwe <johnarwe at us.ibm.com>
To:     oslc-core at open-services.net, 
Date:   11/06/2013 10:19 AM
Subject:        [oslc-core] today's meeting
Sent by:        "Oslc-Core" <oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net>



FYI/regrets-like: I will have to swap over to an executive call for about 
10 minutes, probably nearer the start but time is not exact (someone will 
be poking me on chat when it's time). 
agenda += (wrt Actions) the proposal draft does include a namespace; would 

be useful to see if Core is OK with that choice or wants a different one. 
The "images not showing" problem may be a website issue, I've asked the 
webmaster to look at something suspect I found this morning. 
agenda += (new topic, potentially related to vocabulary guidance work) 
I've been working on some tools to help with spec authoring - specifically 

the resource definition tables.  In the course of that, I've come across 
the need for some extension properties (2, so far).  It would be 
convenient to have a properly allocated namespace for those, even if it's 
not mature enough to work deeply in public just yet (I want to have 
prototype working first, and it's not there yet). 
Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario 
_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/attachments/20131112/a4b6658f/attachment-0003.html>