> Nevertheless I've uploaded my first working draft of the Availability Vocab
No harm, but FWIW the usual pattern is work on the spec and once that's fairly stable worry about generating the vocabulary document(s), since they typically add nothing over the spec (and sometimes have a tiny bit less). Given that it looks like you used [one of several] "scripts" to generate it (based purely on the look of it), not sure why you'd make it PDF instead of the usual HTML+RDF files. > These are the changes I've made, that are reflected by the vocabulary: I think you mean you made these changes *to the spec draft*, which was not apparent at first. > (1) suggested namespace is now "oslc-availability". :) Either that's a namespace prefix, or the rest of the URI is missing; the vocab document says TDB (sic). The current spec draft (following the URL in this new vocab draft, freshly downloaded) says oslc_avail still as the prefix, and .../av# as the URI. Unless Automation decides to ask Core for ownership of another "top level qualifier", the URI would start with http://open-services.net/ns/automation > (1) Removed dcterms:contributor as link from an AvailabilityResource to an > AutomationPlan, will be replaced by oslc:action. It's still in the diagram, and in the table, so I'm concluding that either the link from this new vocab document is wrong or the PDF behind it has not actually been updated, so I'm stopping review now. And grumbling. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead
