[Oslc-recon] Proposal for adding new rdf:type values for crtv:SoftwareServer

[John Arwe]

>> reviews so could change but, if it is approved then you should not 
>> assume MSClusterServer is a SoftwareServer resource. 

> Of course something could be both an rdfs:Container and a 
> crtv:SoftwareServer. Currently container doesn't have any 
> identificatrion rules so it would not be recomciled.

Maybe I'm not parsing the intent correctly, but as written I'd have to say 
"of course" ... both statements are true, but they say different things. 
Janet's says !(MSClusterServer => SoftwareServer), and Joe's says 
Exists(rdfs:Container && crtv:SoftwareServer).
The relationship between the two is so distant that I'm not actually sure 
why they crop up in the same thread.

> Xiao Liang needs to further differentiate the type of 
> crtv:SoftwareServer for processing in his performance monitoring 
product. 
> 
> Proposed additions are : 
> 
> crtv:ABAPServer 
> crtv:MSSQLServer 
> crtv:MSEXCHANGEServer 
> crtv:MSActiveDirectory 
> crtv:MSSharepointServer 
> crtv:MSIIS 
> crtv:MSClusterServer 
> crtv:MSDOTNETFramework

Additions *to what*?  Vocabulary? Spec? Best practices?  If I'm not sure 
of the question, I have no way to form an informed opinion.

Based purely on appearances, most of those are Microsoft product names. 
- Ideally, Microsoft would own those definitions in a Microsoft-controlled 
namespace URI. 
- Less ideally, but still less ugly than other alternatives, 
vocabulary(ies) exist in other places that define URIs for those objects.

What due diligence has been done to demonstrate that no (zero) other 
vocabulary(ies) exist that can be re-used for this purpose?  Nothing in 
DMTF or OASIS, say, where Microsoft does participate?  Nothing in IANA 
registries?  See EMS for an example of decent due diligence.

I don't know that I'd ever support this kind of thing.  It's a horrible 
precedent IMO.  The concepts are owned by their owners; the proposed 
predicate names appear to make this Painfully Obvious.  If one product 
needs this, it does not have to land in Reconciliation (the spec) or CRTV 
(the vocabulary).  Neither is or should become a dumping ground for any 
one product, or any one vendor for that matter.  If IBM wants to agree on 
what the values should be for interop amongst IBM products, fine, do it in 
an IBM-controlled namespace where it's crystal clear that it's a hack 
necessary (if this is in fact true) because the concept owners fail to 
identify the concepts they own uniquely.


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-recon_open-services.net/attachments/20130528/07078a6a/attachment-0003.html>