[OSLC-RM] Link types
James Conallen
jconallen at us.ibm.com
Tue Oct 6 11:34:30 EDT 2009
I have one concern about the link types document's attempt to define *both*
the forward and reverse links. I believe that the general OSLC mechanism
for creating bi-directional links is to create two unidirectional links
managed by each server, and hope that it is possible with a query on the
other server to find the right back link when deleting.
If this is the case, then we should probably restrict the definition of the
link types to those that are managed by the OSLC RM implementing service,
and not make assumptions that all the other services (i.e. OSLC CM, OSLC
AM, OSLC QM, ...) will support these OSLC RM defined link types.
In the OSLC AM space our scenarios have all sorts of link types that are
referenced. For example a model element can implement a requirement, or
specify a requirement, or a requirement resource can be documentation (i.e.
how to guide) for a model element. Given that both models and requirements
can be used in many different ways, it is hard to pin down, generically,
just a few relationship types between AM resources and requirements. With
this said, if we just say that links from Requirements to Architecture
Management Resources will be one of (modeledBy, realisedBy or
incorporatedBy) that will be fine from an OSLC AM client point of view.
<jim/>
jim conallen
jconallen at us.ibm.com
Rational Software, IBM Software Group
|------------>
| From: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Benjamin Williams <bwilliams at uk.ibm.com> |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Ian Green1 <ian.green at uk.ibm.com> |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|oslc-rm at open-services.net, oslc-rm-bounces at open-services.net |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|10/06/2009 10:22 AM |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Re: [OSLC-RM] Link types |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Sent by: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|oslc-rm-bounces at open-services.net |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Ian
As per my other email on reporting, I feel that such such collaboration and
consistency across domains will be extremely important, if not absolutely
necessary.
Specifically in the context of reporting, the features exposed by service
providers across each domain will need to (consistently) support the
requirements and use-cases defined in the Reporting domain such that
reporting consumers can leverage lifecycle data without needing any
knowledge of the source domains and any differences in the way they expose
data.
The scenarios and use-cases that we are defining in the reporting domain
should be entirely domain agnostic, as far as I am concerned. We can use
specific examples for both single domain reporting as well as cross domain
reporting, but the domains used in the examples should be freely
interchangeable without any impact on the reporting consumer.
The reporting domain is still in its infancy, and my involvement in OSLC is
only just beginning, but from what I understand, the reporting domain might
be one of the first things to force us to think about some of the cross
domain issues that you and Simon have discussed.
/Ben
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Williams
Senior Product Manager - Rational Publishing Engine
Email: bwilliams at uk.ibm.com
Tel: +44 20 8818 4360
Cell: +44 7710 637 067
IBM Extension: 364360
IBM ITN: 37364360
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ian Green1/UK/IBM at IBMGB
To: "Simon Wills" <simon.wills at integrate.biz>
Cc: oslc-rm at open-services.net
Date: 06/10/2009 14:16
Subject: Re: [OSLC-RM] Link types
Sent by: oslc-rm-bounces at open-services.net
Hello Simon,
this is good progress both on explaining our current position w.r.t. link
types, and also taking a longer term view of the role we see link types
playing the future. Thanks very much for putting this together.
Steve/Scott: whilst there is no pressure as yet to drive this forward,
Simon makes a good case for any such effort to be cross-OSLC domains. How
do you see this shaping up over time? Is there some tension between
designing an OSLC-wide vocabulary and being entirely scenario-driven?
best wishes,
-ian
ian.green at uk.ibm.com (Ian Green1/UK/IBM at IBMGB)
Chief Software Architect, Requirements Definition and Management
IBM Rational
From: "Simon Wills" <simon.wills at integrate.biz>
To: Ian Green1/UK/IBM at IBMGB
Date: 05/10/2009 15:42
Subject: Link types
Hi Ian
Just to let you know ... I’ve put a new section titled ‘Discussion Topics’
in the right hand sidebar of the main RM page, and put a link to a
discussion document on link types (at
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmDiscussionLinkTypes). Haven’t
quite sussed out how to format tables properly in the Wiki editor, but the
content is all there.
Would you like me to put out an announcement on the mailing list?
Cheers
Simon
Simon Wills
Managing Director
integrate systems engineering ltd
m: +44 (0)7967 091824
t: +44 (0)1225 859991
f: +44 (0)1225 859993
e: simon.wills at integrate.biz
w: www.integrate.biz
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-RM mailing list
OSLC-RM at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-rm_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
_______________________________________________
OSLC-RM mailing list
OSLC-RM at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-rm_open-services.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-rm_open-services.net/attachments/20091006/9f067f9b/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-rm_open-services.net/attachments/20091006/9f067f9b/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ecblank.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-rm_open-services.net/attachments/20091006/9f067f9b/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the Oslc-Rm
mailing list