Replying to both John&Martin in 1. JA> > What does the WG think about ditching oslc:ContentFromRepresentation > > and re-using the Automation vocabulary term ParameterInstance in its place? Sounds fine to me
MP> What would the rdfs:comment (description) of ParameterInstance be if we did this? > Current rdfs:comment [1]: "The Automation Parameter Instance resource" Seems like current comment is of limited value, it could either stay (as it is accurate) or provide a little bit more meaning such as "specifies name/value pairs" MP> haven't such as the resource shape of the value resource), but coming up > with a description that can cover both (and would make sense in a context- > less RDFS review) would help seeing if it works or not. Maybe prepending some qualifier to current shape description such as ""A resource representing an individual input or output parameter instance for another resource, for example in Automation an Automation Request or Result. Automation Requests and Results may have 0 or more parameter instances. " The last statement is clearly about Auto requests and results, which could be left as it already has context or remove the sentence altogether as this is covered in the Req/Res sections. Thanks, Steve Speicher IBM Rational Software OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> http://open-services.net "Oslc-Automation" <oslc-automation-boun...@open-services.net> wrote on 03/18/2014 12:53:12 PM: > From: Martin P Pain <martinp...@uk.ibm.com> > To: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: oslc-automation@open-services.net > Date: 03/18/2014 12:54 PM > Subject: Re: [Oslc-Automation] Actions 2.0 oslc:ContentFromRepresentation > Sent by: "Oslc-Automation" <oslc-automation-boun...@open-services.net> > > What would the rdfs:comment (description) of ParameterInstance be if we did this? > > Current rdfs:comment [1]: "The Automation Parameter Instance resource" > Current resource shape description in [2]: "A resource representing an > individual input or output parameter instance for an Automation Request or > Result. Automation Requests and Results may have 0 or more parameter instances. " > > Assuming we based a generic description on the current resource shape > description, I presume "for an Automation Request or Result. Automation > Requests and Results may have 0 or more parameter instances." could become a > domain-specific example (although it might still go in the RDFS description). > However, neither "The Automation Parameter Instance resource" nor "A > resource representing an individual input or output parameter instance" > describe something that immediately stands out as being a possible mapping > for an HTTP request body. > > I agree that the resource shape for ParameterInstance looks like a good > candidate for reuse (including the fact that it considers things that we > haven't such as the resource shape of the value resource), but coming up > with a description that can cover both (and would make sense in a context- > less RDFS review) would help seeing if it works or not. > > > > [1] http://open-services.net/ns/auto/auto.rdf > [2] http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/OSLC-Automation-Specification- > Version-2.1/#Resource_ParameterInstance > > 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: [image removed] and within IBM on: [image removed] > > [image removed] > > > > > 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" <oslc-automation-boun...@open-services.net> wrote on 18/ > 03/2014 16:40:06: > > > From: John Arwe <johna...@us.ibm.com> > > To: oslc-automation@open-services.net, > > Date: 18/03/2014 16:40 > > Subject: [Oslc-Automation] Actions 2.0 oslc:ContentFromRepresentation > > Sent by: "Oslc-Automation" <oslc-automation-boun...@open-services.net> > > > > One thing I noticed as I was preparing to do some of the cleanup > > work ... I think it's down to the list at bottom ... is > > oslc:ContentFromRepresentation, which to first order we're just > > using as a "type, value" pair. I.e. it's only "real" property is > > rdf:value, which allows any object. That's a pattern I've seen > > before, with the addition of 'name', in OSLC Automation [1]. > > > > What does the WG think about ditching oslc:ContentFromRepresentation > > and re-using the Automation vocabulary term ParameterInstance in its place? > > > > Pros (that I see): re-use instead of defining-new (DRY principle). > > > > Cons (...): We lose the ability to get an "exact" semantic fit with > > Actions' needs that we would get by defining our own snowflake- > > special term. (Not that anyone's code will really care.) > > Separate point: Steve mentioned (in the context of Auto 2.1 Appendix > > D Changes) the possibility of reviewing vocabulary terms somewhat > > separately from their context. Having just fixed a number of typos/ > > etc in that RDFS, I've come to believe that we should do that, but I > > don't think we need any new artifacts to do so. Let's just plan on > > really scrutinizing the vocabulary while we wait for comments (from > > Core et al.) on 2.1, using the HTML as the "context free" review > > material. I've found that it's pretty obvious when something that's > > really shape-specific was propagated from wiki to RDFS, since we've > > not been very careful about separating the layers to date. > > Actions 2.0 net outstanding items: > > - resource shapes (as wiki text and/or RDF) > > - updating examples to match current text > > - the "split" of fixed body from auto request > > - vocabulary documents (which, in Core's case, might be just > > oslc:binding if we re-use ParameterInstance as proposed above; the > > Automation vocabulary docs are done AFAIK now). > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Automation mailing list > Oslc-Automation@open-services.net > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net
