+1 to defer from the OSLC-CM 2.0 spec. Regards, Patrick
|------------> | From: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Scott Bosworth <[email protected]> | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | To: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |[email protected] | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Date: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |10/21/2010 04:08 PM | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Re: [oslc-cm] Fw: Proposed new rdf:type URIs for CM 2.0 | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| +1 Steve (but then you knew I'd say that :-) ). Feedback from other workgroup members? Please weigh in. Thanks...Scott Scott Bosworth | IBM Rational CTO Team | [email protected] | 919.486.2197 (w) | 919.244.3387(m) | 919.254.5271(f) [email protected] wrote on 10/20/2010 09:24:25 AM: > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > To: [email protected] > Date: 10/20/2010 09:26 AM > Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Fw: Proposed new rdf:type URIs for CM 2.0 > Sent by: [email protected] > > Hi Scott, > > These are valid concerns. Unfortunately I haven't seen anyone else weigh > in on this thread. Though I have solicited feedback from some individuals > and I get some similar concerns. There is a clear alignment with > leveraging rdf:types in this way, there isn't much time to adapt this in > current implementations and some additional experience in implementation > would be desired. > > With that, my proposed resolution to this is: > - Defer from 2.0 spec > - Continue to better understand how multi-typed resources should be > represented or introduced into the spec > > Please weigh in on this resolution. > > Thanks, > Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 > _______________________________________________ Oslc-Cm mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-cm_open-services.net
