http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/OSLC-Automation-Specification-Version-2.1/#Execution_5
"Interaction patterns defined elsewhere will help consumers by explicitly stating as part of their definition if and how they can be used as immediate-execution bindings. Consumers might avoid using interaction patterns that fail to do so, because of a reduced likelihood for interoperability." So ones defined in Core or Automation are opt-out (permitted unless stated otherwise), but 3rd party ones are opt-in? Not necessarily a problem, but it feels inconsistent. "Interaction patterns defined elsewhere will help consumers by explicitly stating as part of their definition if and how they can be used as immediate-execution bindings." The phrase "immediate-execution bindings" makes sense when used in the context of this section, but as we are specifically talking about them in the context of deferred execution dialogs, perhaps we should offer a term that refers to these bindings for those other 3rd party sepcifications to use, e.g. by saying: "Interaction patterns defined elsewhere will help consumers by explicitly stating as part of their definition if and how they can be used as deferred execution dialog immediate-execution bindings." or "as immediate-execution bindings for deferred execution dialogs". Because outside of this context all bindings could be referred to as "immediate-execution". Alternatively, we could come up with a term that defines the difference between using a pattern in a standard binding and using it in one of these, and use that term here, e.g. "replaced-body bindings", or "representation input bindings" (those that can take a resource representation as input and incorporate it somehow) and state that immediate-execution bindings can use any patterns that can be used for that sort of bindings. Although it does have the downside of introducing another term. You already use the term "input representation" in the next section, which it getting close to this idea, just without giving a name for patterns (or bindings) that have an input representation. http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/OSLC-Automation-Specification-Version-2.1/#Template-dialog-pattern-execution-bindings "Immediate-execution bindings MAY use any of the following interaction patterns for the execution of this interaction pattern, by following the associated instruction." I believe "by following the associated instruction" can be removed. As the next sentence gives the instruction. http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/OSLC-Automation-Specification-Version-2.1/#Specification We're missing the "execution environment" addition. 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: martinp...@uk.ibm.com 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 From: John Arwe <johna...@us.ibm.com> To: oslc-automation@open-services.net, Date: 13/03/2014 20:07 Subject: [Oslc-Automation] 2.1 spec text changes live Sent by: "Oslc-Automation" <oslc-automation-boun...@open-services.net> All the text-drafting changes I know of in Auto 2.1 are now live. I kept the red text for now, plus added a searchable marker: Arwe: WG please review If you search on anything Arwe: or longer in that string, you'll find the newly re-drafted excerpts and the questions that motivated them. If you search on anything shorter, you'll also find other still-open items like examples to be added/updated. As a strawman, I'd say: you have a week to reject/propose changes. So next week's call is the "speak now or..." point, but as always earlier is better and email is fine. http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/OSLC-Automation-Specification-Version-2.1/ Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario _______________________________________________ Oslc-Automation mailing list Oslc-Automation@open-services.net 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
