> Should { <plans/1/results/67890> , oslc_auto:executes ,
<plans/1/future-stop> } be
> { <plans/1/results/67890> ,
oslc_auto:executesAutomationPlan , <plans/1/future-stop> }
> in 2 places?
> It's one action pointing to another action, so I didn't use
executesAutomationPlan as it's not pointing to an AutomationPlan. Other
than that it's semantically very similar.
but but but... the object of both triples is identical:
<plans/1/future-stop>
so either the second one is making a false assertion (which is possible in
general but not what we'd want in an example showing 'the right way'), or
your answer is wrong.
> The only other issues is do we need to add something so that future
extensions can prevent consumers that are used to the "no configuration
needed" case as the only option from using future
A non-normative note warning that future specs might introduce this case
seems friendly.
I was not stumping for removal BTW, just in effect noting that just
because a dialog is offered does not mean that the request Requires more
config. The dialog could just offer to change the template-supplied
values ("defaults"?), and if the user does nothing aside from submit then
the dialog made no net changes. I'm fine with reluctant removal.
The rest seems fine in concept, I'll read the updates "later".
Best Regards, John
Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
