History   View   Links to this page 2012 August 27 | 02:21 pm

This section captures the issues raised via review comments on the OSLC Asset Management 2.0 Specification

Issues are organized via the spec outline.

Here’s what the states mean:

  • OPEN - indicates that we have no response for the issue yet
  • RESOLVED - indicates that we have a response that we believe resolves the issue
    • RESOLVED - indicates it is resolved as by above definition and edits in the draft specification have been made.
  • CLOSED - issue has been resolved and the resolution has been reviewed by the workgroup
  • DEFERRED - indicates that issue will be addressed in guidance after the specification converges
  • TABLED - indicates that issue will be reconsidered at some later but unspecified date

After Finalization of 2.0

During Convergence and Finalization of 2.0

  1. CLOSED The related asset reified statement properties that describe the relationship should start with the term ‘relationship’. This allows implementations to optionally include properties of the related asset in the reified statement that may otherwise conflict with existing properties. For example, the property to describe the creator of the relationship should be changed from ‘dcterms:creator’ to ‘dcterms:relationshipCreator’. This allows an implementation to use ‘dcterms:creator’ to describe the creator of the related asset. (SheehanAnderson, 11 October 2011)
    • Response The property names will not be changed. We will not encourage implementations to include information about the related resource in the reified statement. (SheehanAnderson 11 October 2011)
  2. CLOSED The Compliance table and the Resource Formats section seem to contradict each other on a) the MUST (Compliance) /SHOULD (Resource Formats) status of JSON b the SHOULD (Compliance) and MUST (Resource Formats) status of RDF/XML on a POST request. (MichaelFiedler, 11 October 2011)
    • Response Updated the Compliance and Resource Format sections of the specification. (SheehanAnderson 11 October 2011)
  3. CLOSED The specification does not talk about the DELETE HTTP method for resources. Since we do internally support DELETE in RAM it would be better to take a stance on it. Workitem OSLC v2 Specification should discuss about DELETE resources has been opened for this. Alternatively is there any necessity for HEAD and OPTIONS methods? (SrimanthGunturi, 20 October 2011)
    • Response The DELETE HTTP method for resources is defined in the core specification. See Resource Operations. The asset specification also mentions that implementations MUST support the resource operations as defined in the core specification. See Asset Management Compliance. (SheehanAnderson 24 October 2011)
  4. CLOSED The specification contains both an rdf:type and dcterms:type property. To reduce confusion these two properties should be combined into a single rdf:type property and the the dcterms:type property should not be used. Other specifications (including CM) plan to take this same approach. (SheehanAnderson, 13 December 2011)
    • Response The specification now includes two rdf:type properties, one to represent the resource type and a second to represent the asset type. However, we have discovered that Jena has issues serializing/deserializing resources with multiple rdf:type properties. See issue 14. (SheehanAnderson 03 January 2012)
  5. CLOSED Currently the dcterms:type, oslc_asset:state, and oslc_categorization properties state that their representations can be a String or Resource. Having two potential representations for a single property will pose issues for consumers attempting to parse an asset resource. The properties should instead either be a String or Resource. We think it makes the most sense at this time to define the properties as a resource (SheehanAnderson, 13 December 2011)
    • Response The dcterms:type, oslc_asset:state, and oslc_categorization properties have been updated to resources in the specifications. The actual resources for these properties are not defined by the specification. (SheehanAnderson 03 January 2012)
  6. CLOSED Upon implementing ServiceProviderCatalog service, there was no data to fill in the oslc:details predicate of oslc:ServiceProvider. The example of ServiceProviderCatalog should be cleaned up. (SrimanthGunturi, 14 December 2011)
    • Response The oslc:details property is not required by core (occurs zero-or-many) so it has been removed from the examples. (SheehanAnderson 03 January 2012)
  7. CLOSED oslc:creationDialog example has this predicate dcterms:description which is not specified in the OSLC Core specification.(SrimanthGunturi, 14 December 2011)
    • Response Removed dcterms:description property from example. (SheehanAnderson 03 January 2012)
  8. CLOSED In implementing oslc_asset:Asset, wanted to discuss if we really need the dcterms:creator predicate? We dont use it that much in RAM itself. If there are no good usecases, I would vote to remove it. (SrimanthGunturi, 14 December 2011)
    • Response The property is listed in the specification with an occurs of zero-or-many. It’s not necessary for providers to include the property. It will be left in the specification to be consistent with other OSLC specifications which generally include this property for resources. (SheehanAnderson 03 January 2012)
  9. CLOSED oslc_asset:Asset has the predicate oslc:instanceShape. Why dont we use oslc:resourceShape? (SrimanthGunturi, 14 December 2011)
    • Response oslc:instanceShape should be used as it is more specific and assets of different types may have different instance shapes. (SheehanAnderson 03 January 2012)
  10. CLOSED oslc_asset:Asset has two predicates which have types - oslc_asset:Artifact and oslc_asset:ArtifactFactory. Both of these should be links to the appropriate definitions. (SrimanthGunturi, 14 December 2011)
    • Response The range for oslc_asset:ArtifactFactory has been changed to ‘any’. The oslc_asset:Artifact range can not be linked to the correct portion of the table due to limitations in the wiki, but the definition for an artifact is directly below this property. (SheehanAnderson 03 January 2012)
  11. CLOSED oslc_asset:Asset has predicate oslc_asset:ArtifactFactory. Its type is oslc_asset:AssetFactory. We should probably change it to oslc_asset:ArtifactFactory. (SrimanthGunturi, 14 December 2011)
    • Response Changed oslc_asset:ArtifactFactory range to ‘any’. (SheehanAnderson 03 January 2012)
  12. CLOSED I could not find the resource definition for oslc_asset:ArtifactFactory. (SrimanthGunturi, 14 December 2011)
    • Response Changed oslc_asset:ArtifactFactory range to ‘any’. (SheehanAnderson 03 January 2012)
  13. CLOSED Asset resource’s oslc:instanceShape predicate should have the asset-type or the Asset shape? Sample needs to be updated based on this. (SrimanthGunturi, 23 December 2011)
    • Response We determined that the example is correct. The URL should point to a shape, not the asset type. It is possible that the instance shape is based on the asset type, but this is not necessarily the case. (SheehanAnderson 03 January 2012)
  14. CLOSED For issue #4 we decided to have two rdf:type predicates for Asset resource. In example we only need to show the asset-type rdf:type as the Asset’s rdf:type is implicit in <oslc_asset:Asset/> element’s name.(SrimanthGunturi, 23 December 2011)
    • Response Consumers should be able to handle multiple rdf:type properties. Implementations should return an rdf representation for resources and not use abbreviated XML. (SheehanAnderson 03 January 2012)
  15. CLOSED The asset resource currently uses dcterms:title to represent an asset’s name, dcterms:abstract to represent an asset’s short description, and dcterms:description to represent an asset’s full description. Some members have raised concerns as to whether these are the right property names for their values and if dcterms:abstract and dcterms:description are potentially reversed. This needs to be investigated. (SheehanAnderson, 03 January 2012)
    • Response We looked over the Dublin Core documentation and determined that dcterms:abstract should match to the short description and dcterms:description should map to the full asset description. (SheehanAnderson 03 January 2012)
  16. CLOSED - OSLC Core specification for ResourceShape resource says the literal value type for XMLLiteral is “http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral” . However the Asset resource shape sample uses "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#XMLLiteral" in some places. (SrimanthGunturi, 29 February 2012)
  17. CLOSED - Asset ResourceShape sample has oslc:range predicate value with protocol defined twice - <oslc:range rdf:resource=”http://http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person” />. (SrimanthGunturi, 29 February 2012)
  18. CLOSED - Asset ResourceShape sample has dcterms:identifier pedicate using the wrong URL - <oslc:propertyDefinition rdf:resource=”http://open-services.net/ns/asset#identifier” />. (SrimanthGunturi, 1 March 2012)