History   View   Links to this page Revision from: 2014 July 16 | 08:29 am
This is the revision from 2014 July 16 at 08:29 am   View the current live version of the article.

This section captures the issues raised via review comments on:

Issues are organized via the specification outline.

Note: dates below use ISO 8601 format (yyyy-mm-dd)

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

Issues during convergence

  1. OPEN/RESOLVED 2014-07-16 oslc_auto:futureAction was not listed in the vocabulary changes appendix. Mailing list thread
    • Suggested fix is to add the following to the “changes” appendix:
      • oslc_auto:futureAction:
        • A: rdfs:Property
        • Description: “A predicate that links to an action that is not currently executable on this resource, but may be executable in the future and/or on other resources. The type of the resource on which this predicate is used determines when, and on which resource(s), the executable form of the action is available. For example, in OSLC Automation this is expected to link from an oslc_auto:AutomationPlan to an oslc:Action resource with zero bindings (as it is not executable), with the meaning that the executable form of the action may be available on oslc_auto:AutomationResult resources generated by that Automation Plan.”
    • Add link from change history to at least one spec section (teardown already nods in this direction, but in text not a formal link)
    • Update the vocabulary document (both RDFS and HTML formats)
    • Perhaps the process for vocabulary changes should be the following, lest we continue to grow the change history list of duplicated text that invariably will drift out of synch with the live vocabulary documents over time.
      • Update the vocabulary documents
      • Make the vocabulary documents live
      • Link to the live vocabulary document definition from the change history
      • Remove the copy of the term’s description from the change history