Right, I see. Either that second action needs rdf:type oslc:StateTransitionAction or it is stating a side-effect not an intention/desire.
So I think we can choose between: 1. Re-using oslc_auto:desiredState, where (as it would be defined in the vocab) it is either specified by the consumer (as in Automation Results) or used by the consumer to choose an Action to execute, but it should not be used to state side-effects. or 2. Use a new predicate that can be used for either stating side-effects or stating primary intended changes. In the former case, I can think of no more examples as to why we need the rdf:type value, but is limiting its further re-use because it relies on the definition of what is or is not a "side-effect". In the latter case, I think my argument still stands (for the moment) that we would need the rdf:type oslc:StateTransitionAction so that we expect that to be the primary change. In either case it would be hard to define it such that an implementation is non-compliant if they provided an Action where a consumer inferred that the only change was a state transition, but in actual fact was some greater process that resulting in a state transition as a side-effect. (Even if we defined on StateTransitionAction that "the state transition is the primary change, although it may have side-effects of its own, but StateTransitionAction should not be used when the state transition is the side-effect of something else" - I think this is too wishy-washy to definitively determine if a particular implementation is compliant or not). So I don't care any more. John, if it's not used for side-effects, only primary changes, do you have any problems with using oslc_auto:desiredState? Steve, do you have any preference between 1 and 2 above, or see any difference between them at all? Or anyone else? 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 "Oslc-Automation" <[email protected]> wrote on 04/03/2014 12:34:31: > From: John Arwe <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], > Cc: [email protected] > Date: 04/03/2014 12:35 > Subject: Re: [Oslc-Automation] [oslc-cm] Some comments on Actions > spec (most from CM perspective) > Sent by: "Oslc-Automation" <[email protected]> > > The original problem was: > > > <1> > > # other properties would go here > > oslc:action [ > > a oslc:StateTransitionAction, oslc:Action ; > > oslc_auto:desiredState x:Suspended ; > > dcterms:title "Suspend work on this item" ; > > # bindings would go here > > ] > > oslc:action [ > > a reporting:FlagAsInappropriateAction, oslc:Action ; > > oslc_auto:desiredState x:Suspended ; > > dcterms:title "Flag as inappropriate" ; > > # bindings would go here > > ] > > . > > > > Assuming for the moment we keep oslc:StateTransitionAction, what is > the explanation for its absence on the second action? > Best Regards, John > > Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages > Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Automation mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net 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
