Here is a doc containing some draft potential changes to the Actions spec.
The changes are driven by:
(1) having a single URI to identify each interaction pattern
(which means only having a single HTTP request pattern,
identifying the different ways of building content separately)
(2) re-using the idea of "templates" from automation for the "with
RDF body" case, to avoid solving the same problems (e.g.
content-type) twice.
(3) Also, it brings the "creation factory" interaction pattern
into Core, but John has now suggested we only define the
"AutoRequest Creation factory" pattern, so this would stay
in Automation.
However, as Creation Factories already have a predicate and
semantics for resource shapes, this draft moves the resource
shape pattern in to the Creation Factory one as that is already
(kind of) defined in the Core spec CF resource section.
Also, we might want resource shapes without the "creation"
semantics, so removing resource shapes from the HTTP pattern
is probably not a good idea.Note that the profiles have changed to reflect the changed patterns. The POST profile has got a little but more complicated, but hopefully not by too much. I'm not proposing these changes, they are there to prompt thought about these three areas. So my questions are: (1) Does such a refactor to provide a single identifying URI (rdf:type value) per interaction pattern (although we may do it differently than this) make things better or worse? (2) Is the reference to a common "templates" concept better than just saying "serialize the RDF"? (3) Is there any value in this sort of usage of CFs? (My answer: no, as we may want resource shapes without the creation semantics, as defined above). So I guess my proposal is to take the changes related to points (1) and (2), but with resource shapes as an alternative "request body type" under the HTTP pattern, rather than as part of the CF pattern. Do any of you you agree/disagree? Martin Pain Software Developer - Green Hat Rational Test Virtualization Server, Rational Test Control Panel Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration - Automation WG joint chair E-mail: [email protected] Find me on: and within IBM on: IBM United Kingdom Limited Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU 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
2014-01-13 OSLC Actions spec - CF and HTTP impl pattern changes.odt
Description: Binary data
