I knew of this potential drawback but it was brought to my attention earlier today, the over use and broad definition of oslc_cm:ChangeRequest for any and all types of things change request like. We quickly run to the spec to see what it leaves open and what it restricts, which honestly isn't much. The origins were always to start small and simple, hoping implementations won't abuse what resources are labeled as oslc_cm:ChangeRequest, but it appears some additional guidance may be needed.
This leads me to put a request to the WG for feedback on a number of points: 1. What issues do you see with the vagueness of the current scope and definition of the class of resources called "change requests"? 2. What class of things do you classify as "change requests"? For example: enhancement request, defect fix request, etc 3. How do you now advertise what sub-class of oslc_cm:ChangeRequests a resource is? 4. How would you see this playing out to advertise a sub-class of oslc_cm:ChangeRequest? I'll partially answer this to seed (and influence) the discussion: we should define a new resource type, such as oslc_cm:Defect and oslc_cm:Enhancement Thanks, Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
