Geoff, This reminds me of how W3C treated SOAP. The originally meaning was "Simple Object Access Protocol". In fact, SOAP was neither Simple nor Object-oriented. But the term SOAP had become widespread, so W3C kept it but stopped treating it as an acronym. So in SOAP 1.1, it is an acronym, but in SOAP 1.2 it isn't.
My preference is to avoid the churn caused by renaming things. I especially do not want to see any change to the current vocabulary URIs, which do contain the word "services". OSLC is based on Linked Data which combines REST web services with RDF. I think the use of "services" is therefore natural and defensible. If some potential adopters are confused by our use of "services", then we should invest in creating better educational material. Regards, ___________________________________________________________________________ Arthur Ryman DE, PPM & Reporting Chief Architect IBM Software, Rational Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) From: Geoffrey M Clemm <[email protected]> To: Uri Shani <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], Kartik Kanakasabesan <[email protected]>, [email protected] Date: 01/29/2012 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [oslc] Oslc-Core post from [email protected] requires approval Sent by: [email protected] I agree with Uri that the main thing the OSLC group produces are specification (that is, after all, the original point Steve made below to motivate the change). But note that there are lots of other OSLC things, other than what the OSLC group produces (such as the "OSLC working groups" themselves, the "OSLC web site", an "OSLC implementation", etc. And I also agree with Uri that this means we will frequently be referring to "OSLC specifications", such as the "OSLC Change Management Specification" or the "OSLC Requirements Management Specification". But I think that is OK. I think the natural abbreviation would just be "spec", and not an addition to the acronym (after all, I've never seen the acronym OSLCS in use today, to stand for "Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration Specification"). And the expansion of OSLC is so wordy, that nobody ever uses the full name except to introduce it once at the beginning of a document. But I'm also fine with just keeping the S to mean "Services" (:-). Cheers, Geoff From: Uri Shani <[email protected]> To: Kartik Kanakasabesan/Durham/IBM@IBMUS Cc: [email protected] Date: 01/29/2012 09:22 AM Subject: Re: [oslc] Oslc-Core post from [email protected] requires approval Sent by: [email protected] Indeed Katrik, what we do in OSLC is write specifications for OSLC..., whose goal is not the specifications, but the enablement of some Open Lifecycle Collaboration among Something(s), and for some domain(s) of engineering tools. I guess the S stands for classifying these "things" and/or the domains. Is the specifications themselves one of these? My comment has been that when "OSLC" comes together with the word "Specifications" it does not sound right. That happens quite allot since the major product of this effort is indeed - as said above - specifications: for AM, RM, Core etc. Regards, - Uri From: Kartik Kanakasabesan <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 26/01/2012 03:24 PM Subject: Re: [oslc] Oslc-Core post from [email protected] requires approval Sent by: [email protected] Hello Uri, with respect to you comment >>>>>With S == "Specifications", "OSLC Specifications" becomes "Open Specifications for Lifecycle Collaboration Specifications", which is confusing again. I suggest S == "Solutions". I don't understand the confusion, it has always been OSLC, it was never intended to be OSLCS as you are referring it. Specifications has never been part of the nomenclature of the acronym. I believe solution fosters the notion of a product or a set of products which our community is not focussed on. Regards, Kartik ----- Message from Uri Shani <[email protected]> on Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:47:01 +0200 ----- To: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: [oslc] Reconsidering the "S" in OSLC Steve, With S == "Specifications", "OSLC Specifications" becomes "Open Specifications for Lifecycle Collaboration Specifications", which is confusing again. I suggest S == "Solutions". Regards, - Uri From: Steve K Speicher <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: 25/01/2012 11:27 PM Subject: [oslc] Reconsidering the "S" in OSLC Sent by: [email protected] As we all know "S" technically stands for "Services" in OSLC but what are these "Services"? In doing a little digging, the original intent of the name was to focus on REST and therefore the word "services" was introduced to represent "REST services". This has led to a number of problems with confusion over what kind of services are we talking about. For instance, there is a natural tendency to map the OSLC use of the word service with that of SOA (Service Oriented Architecture), which is not at all the association we want. Will this be a constant problem as OSLC expands into new domains and 3rd party adoption? I believe so. I'm proposing to fix the problem with "S" standing for "Services" and instead introduce "Specifications". So try this on for size, Open Specifications for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC) Open Specifications is really what we want the focus to be out. The technical approach and the basis on Linked Data quite important as well, but that is supported by the community's development of open specifications based on that technology. I believe this is a necessary change and the right one. It captures what OSLC is really about. Yes, changing this provides a bit of short term pain but the longer we wait it will be harder to change and we'll have to continue to deal with the confusion it introduces. Of course there are a number of logistics to consider with such a change: Fixing names used on websites, articles, charts, etc (like the title of this Community) Considering updating more complicated things like OSLC intro videos Considering a better domain name Do you see this as being an issue worth addressing? Do you have other suggestions for the letter "S"? If no big issues, what timeframe would this change occur? I believe the sooner the better. I'd like to have a gauge on this by January 31st. I (and the community) would be interested in hearing both support for this, as well as any concerns. Feel free to reply to this email post and/or on the forums. Thanks, Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 _______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net ----- Message from [email protected] on Thu, 26 Jan 2012 04:47:17 -0500 ----- Subject: confirm 4907d56e15ade5a90752a1165389dec06f6ba3af If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact, Mailman will discard the held message. Do this if the message is spam. If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting to the list. The Approved: header can also appear in the first line of the body of the reply. _______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net _______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net _______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net
