This has been deferred from CM 2.0. I have preserved some of the text and concerns in the CM Experimental page at: http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmExperimental#Additional_Type_URIs_for_ChangeR
Thanks, Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > To: [email protected] > Date: 10/20/2010 09:25 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 > > > > From: Scott Bosworth/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > To: [email protected] > > Date: 10/18/2010 11:41 AM > > Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Fw: Proposed new rdf:type URIs for CM 2.0 > > Sent by: [email protected] > > > > Hi Steve, I can see the need and value for these type URI's, but I > wonder if > > we are at the right point in the process to add them. Also, I'm not sure > > > whether we've provided enough guidance on their appropriate use. > > > > For example, if I'm a client and I queried for ...cm#defect, I would > expect to > > get a list of defects back, yet none of the V2 spec provider > implementations > > already delivered would reply in such a way today. This might seem like > a bug > > to a client implementation? > > > > Also, I wonder what the introduction of these types does to portability > across > > CM provider implementations, especially since we haven't had much > discussion/ > > adoption of their use. If I wanted to query for all resources that were > some > > type of ChangeQuest, I'm thinking I would now have to construct a query > that > > includes all of the possible CM defined types rather than query for > rdf:type > > of ChangeRequest as I did in the past? I suspect clients written today > might > > do the latter? If this is the case and new providers make use of the new > type > > uri's, then might some Change Requests be left out of the response? Or > are we > > implying that the new types are all of the ChangeRequest class and would > be > > included in a query response for resources of type ChangeRequest? > > > > Anyhow, given that the CM V2 spec is in finalization, I wonder if we > should > > defer introduction of these types until such time when we can explore > these > > questions and have consumer/provider implementations that support their > use in > > the intended way...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 10/13/2010 03:19:36 PM: > > > > > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: 10/13/2010 03:20 PM > > > Subject: [oslc-cm] Fw: Proposed new rdf:type URIs for CM 2.0 > > > Sent by: [email protected] > > > > > > Per today's WG meeting, I have made this change: > > > http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/ > > > CmSpecificationV2#Additional_Type_URIs_for_ChangeR > > > > > > Please raise any issues with this change. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 > > > > > > > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Date: 10/06/2010 02:52 PM > > > > Subject: [oslc-cm] Proposed new rdf:type URIs for CM 2.0 > > > > Sent by: [email protected] > > > > > > > > When looking at the current CM 2.0 spec, there are a number of > "usage" > > > > URIs that are used to identify services for a particular usage. It > is > > > > clear that these would be suitable as values for identifying the > > > rdf:type > > > > of a oslc_cm:ChangeRequest. > > > > > > > > So I propose that we elevate these usage URIs: > > > > * http://open-services.net/ns/cm#defect - primarily used by QM > > > tools > > > > to report defects in testing. > > > > * http://open-services.net/ns/cm#planItem - used by QM and PPM > tools > > > > > > > for associating change requests into plans (project, release, > sprint, > > > > etc). > > > > * http://open-services.net/ns/cm#task - used by QM and PPM tools > for > > > > > > > associating change requests into executable and track-able items. > > > > * http://open-services.net/ns/cm#requirementsChangeRequest - > used by > > > > > > > RM tools for associating a change request for usage in tracking > changes > > > to > > > > a Requirements resource > > > > > > > > That would allow service providers to return multiple rdf:type > property > > > > values when defining a ChangeRequest format representation to > respond > > > > with. > > > > > > > > Will add to agenda for next meeting. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Oslc-Cm mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-cm_open-services.net > > _______________________________________________ > > Oslc-Cm mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-cm_open-services.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Cm mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-cm_open-services.net
