This is the one about profile adherence ... if an Action has n>1 bindings, how many bindings have to meet the IP's constraints in order to adhere to (be recognized as using) the spec profile.
On the surface this looks incredibly simple to fix - am I missing something? In [1], I think we just shift the language from Action bindings (plural) to singular - and that's my proposal. I think it's true throughout that the intention was that each binding satisfies 1:* interaction patterns, and the constraints/recognition tests apply to each binding. Using the "royal we" style is ambiguous since readers can wonder if the [set of] bindings is "bindings in general" or "the bindings on Action [action-url]". Using singular obviates that problem. I don't see it introducing others at first glance. [1] http://open-services.net/wiki/core/Exposing-arbitrary-actions-on-RDF-resources/#Specification-profile-definitions Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead
