Nothing so well thought out, sorry. I loathe underscores is all, and (being a touch typist) once I got to oslc-auto my fingers did the rest on their own. Since Core Actions was its own spec, I felt unconstrained by Automation's established convention. But it's not a religious issue, if the WG favors cross-spec consistency I can change it. I was careful to be consistent within each spec (domain, actually).
Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario Martin P Pain <martinp...@uk.ibm.com> wrote on 03/20/2014 05:39:30 AM: > [2]'s resource shape: is there any particular reason you used "oslc- > automation", not "oslc_auto" as is used here: http://open- > services.net/wiki/automation/OSLC-Automation-Specification- > Version-2.1/#Namespaces > > Given that this return value is not in a standard RDF syntax, the > exact prefix we use in the spec is (I believe) the exact prefix that > the implementations will need to use. (This may have been taken into > account in your decision, I don't know). >
