[oslc-core] review of actions 2.0 - Part II (1-3) : Typos, clarifications
Martin P Pain
martinpain at uk.ibm.com
Tue Aug 5 07:03:23 EDT 2014
Part II: Typos & clarifications
1. Section "Terminology" - "provider": I'm happy with "is authority of"
rather than "creates".
2. Section "Domain-specific consumers":
2.1 Do actions get "consumed"?
The problem with the word "executed" is that there are two parts to the
execution. The consumer/client sends an HTTP request (or similar) and the
provider/server does something as a result. The "execution" could either
refer to both sides of that, or just to the provider/server side.
If you're referring to the word "consumed" in the phrase "Find potentially
consumable, currently available ", I can't remember what we meant by
"potentially consumable" other than what is described in the steps further
down (regarding checking compatibility of interaction patterns). John, can
you remember?
2.2 Suggested rephrase.
I'd probably add in a "that is" in the brackets: "For each interaction
pattern that is supported by
the consumer (that is, the interaction patterns supported by the consumer,
along
with any restrictions, if any, de
fined by the profi
le(s) they were
implemented against):"
2.3 Typo: Correction accepted.
.
3. Section "Description"
3.1 Section Name: I can't think of a better name. It contains the bulk of
the normative definition of the spec. Perhaps we could just remove this
heading and promote each of the sections under it up one level.
3.2 I don't think this is aimed solely at OSLC working groups, but
includes anyone who might want to define a public profile (just in case
anyone else wants to). I think the normative "MUST" is perhaps incorrect
(as it's referring to process, not the resulting spec), but the problem
with removing it is that we lose the thought behind it - this spec is also
where OSLC members get familiar with these profiles.
3.3 I think we do need to reword this, but I think you missed the
intention. The point is that the oslc:action predicate is, according to
this specification, THE way to link from a resource to actions that can,
at the current time, be used to act on that resource. It is the concept of
"at the current time" that lead to the phrase "currently available" in
this sentence, not the idea of "currently defined by the spec".
I don't know how strongly we want to put that in the spec. Perhaps:
"This specification defines the oslc:action predicate as the sole way to
link from a resource to actions that can, at the current time, be used to
act on that resource. Domain specifications re-using this specification
MUST use that predicate (not define their own equivalent), if the
semantics of the relationship match. The semantics of the action itself
are determined by the rdf:type values of the action, not the predicate
that links to it. However, there are other types of relationships between
resources and actions, for example ones that cannot be used at the current
time, or that act on other resources. Domain specifications re-using this
specification MAY define new predicates for such relationships, as OSLC
Automation 2.1 does for 'future actions'."
But this is quite wordy.
Also, the first "MUST" could be "STRONGLY RECOMMENDED" instead.
3.4 I think the reference to "hash URIs" is just to make thoswe less
familiar with RDF aware that you don't necesarily need a new HTTP
resource/endpoint (as some implementors find that undesirable). (They
might not understand what it means, but it gives them something to Google
for.)
Of these, I'm happy to accept 1, 2.3, and that somethign needs to happen
for 3.3.
No objection to 2.2, so if you think it;'s clearer I'm happy to accept
that one too.
I'll raise 2.1 for discussion.
3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 I don't intend to proceed with unless someone pushes them
further, in the interests of getting most out of the time spent on this.
(I might summarise them at the next meeting to give anyone more of a
chance to +1 them).
To be continued...
Martin Pain
Software Developer - Green Hat
Rational Test Virtualization Server, Rational Test Control Panel
OASIS Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration - Automation technical
committee chair
E-mail: martinpain at uk.ibm.com
Find me on: and within IBM on:
IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU
"Oslc-Core" <oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net> wrote on 21/07/2014
09:45:14:
> From: Ian Green1/UK/IBM at IBMGB
> To: oslc-core at open-services.net,
> Date: 21/07/2014 09:46
> Subject: Re: [oslc-core] review of actions 2.0
> Sent by: "Oslc-Core" <oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net>
>
> I've uploaded my review comments to http://open-services.net/wiki/
> core/File:review_of_actions2.0_draftspec_img.pdf
>
> best wishes,
> -ian
>
> ian.green at uk.ibm.com (Ian Green1/UK/IBM at IBMGB)
> IBM Rational
>
> <oslc-core at lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 18/07/2014 19:19:42:
>
> > From: John Arwe <johnarwe at us.ibm.com>
> > To: oslc-core at lists.oasis-open.org
> > Date: 18/07/2014 19:21
> > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] review of actions 2.0
> > Sent by: <oslc-core at lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> > Ian, IIRC Actions is still be worked in open-services.net since it's
> > not finalized.
> > Can you post a copy of the PDF there as well, so the IP policy
> > (open-services WG's entitlement to use it) is crystal clear? oslc-
> > automation is probably best, but oslc-core works too.
> > FYI, we also recently received some feedback from a new implementer
> > in my area, who's using it in a new way. I added a small section on
> > Future Actions earlier this week to address his questions about the
> > relationship between resource shapes and ... well... future actions
> > (a concept already needed + present in Automation, but until this
> > feedback we had zero scenarios to justify its existence in Core).
> > Best Regards, John
> >
> > Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages
> > Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Ian Green1 <ian.green at uk.ibm.com>
> > To: oslc-core at lists.oasis-open.org
> > Date: 07/17/2014 08:50 AM
> > Subject: [oslc-core] review of actions 2.0
> > Sent by: <oslc-core at lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello
> > I have reviewed Actions 2.0 [1]. Please find attached my review
> > comments. I wanted to upload these to the TC wiki / oslc.net wiki
> > but wasn't sure where it should go.
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] http://open-services.net/wiki/core/Exposing-arbitrary-actions-
> > on-RDF-resources/
> >
> > best wishes,
> > -ian
> >
> > ian.green at uk.ibm.com (Ian Green1/UK/IBM at IBMGB)
> > IBM Rational
> > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> > number 741598.
> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
> > PO6 3AU[attachment "review_of_actions_spec.pdf" deleted by John
> > Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM]
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Core mailing list
> Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/attachments/20140805/29ddd11b/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 518 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/attachments/20140805/29ddd11b/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1208 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/attachments/20140805/29ddd11b/attachment-0001.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 360 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/attachments/20140805/29ddd11b/attachment.gif>
More information about the Oslc-Core
mailing list