[oslc-rm] [oslc-core] DRAFT of minor updates to RM 2.0 specification ready for review

[John Arwe]

http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2Issues?rev=46 
looked really big and scary (this is the change list for a "small 
erratum"???) until I realized that only the item "OPEN V2.0 specification 
is missing some vocabulary elements," is what we're talking about.  The 
email below had me thinking that the issues list would be limited to the 
contents of the proposed update.
The errata page 
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2r20110503Errata is 
what I was expecting.  Note that it does not address part ii of the issue, 
in case that was unintentional.
Since I lack the history, some inconsistency in 2010/2011 dates wrt RM 
finalization is confusing me.  Your email below states "new page 
RmSpecificationV2r20100503, which is the RM 2.0 specification we declared 
final on 3rd May 2011" ... note V2r20100503 [2010 date] vs 3rd May 2011. 
Looking at the footer on 
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2r20110503 , I see 
"Main.RmSpecificationV2r20110503 moved from 
Main.RmSpecificationV2r20100503" which makes it look like a 2010 spec was 
(inadvertantly?) changed to a 2011 spec.
Looking at 
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2r20110930 (linked 
to from the issues entry), I see how it addresses the vocabulary omission 
but not how it addresses part ii of the issue "(ii) that the connection 
between oslc_rm:elaboratedBy and oslc_rm:elaborates remained unclear."
> You will notice that RmSpecificationV2r1 also has links the latest 
version of the specification.  The intention is that this will link to 
RmSpecificationV2. 
I get a 404-equivalent (topic does not yet exist) on 
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2r1.  Assuming you 
meant RmSpecificationV2r20110930, but please confirm that was your intent.
> When we are agreed that RmSpecificationV2r20110930 is what we want, 
RmSpecificationV2 will be updated
Sorry if this dense, but "updated how"?  Did you mean that the 
RmSpecificationV2 would redirect to/be treated as a potentially temporary 
alias for RmSpecificationV2r20110930 ?

Should we expect any changes to 
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmHome , e.g. to the version and/or 
date columns in the table?  To the RDFS vocabulary document?

Process note for future: the usual practice in my W3C days was that the 
editors produced a diff of any proposed spec changes.  Since the Twiki 
implementation you're using does that pretty easily, it might be a good 
practice to adopt in OSLC (Core at least).

Best Regards, John

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




From:   Ian Green1 <ian.green at uk.ibm.com>
To:     oslc-rm at open-services.net
Cc:     oslc-core at open-services.net
Date:   09/22/2011 12:59 PM
Subject:        [oslc-core] DRAFT of minor updates to RM 2.0 specification 
ready   for review
Sent by:        oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



Hello all 

The minor changes to the RM 2.0 specification that we've been discussing 
are now in place, and ready for review. 
The issue list at [1] describes what has been done and why, and links to 
the affected pages. 
I've created a new page RmSpecificationV2r20110930, which is the DRAFT RM 
2.0 specification with the updates to account for the errata. 
I've created a new page RmSpecificationV2r20100503, which is the RM 2.0 
specification we declared final on 3rd May 2011, but which also includes a 
link to an errata, at RmSpecificationV2r20110503Errata, with previous and 
next versions updated.  This errata describes the vocabulary terms that 
are being added. 
You will notice that RmSpecificationV2r1 also has links the latest version 
of the specification.  The intention is that this will link to 
RmSpecificationV2. 
When we are agreed that RmSpecificationV2r20110930 is what we want, 
RmSpecificationV2 will be updated. 
I ask you to review these proposed changes and let me know as soon as 
possible by email if you in disagreement.  Unless I hear of objections by 
email I will action the above on 30 September and make these changes 
final. 

[1] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2Issues 

best wishes,
   -ian

ian.green at uk.ibm.com (Ian Green1/UK/IBM at IBMGB)
Chief Software Architect, Requirements Definition and Management
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 





_______________________________________________
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-rm_open-services.net/attachments/20111004/5b220044/attachment-0003.html>