Hi Steve, Apologies for being very slow to see and respond to this. I've been very busy with other product focuses, leaving much less time and attention for OSLC than I would like.
As I recall, my issue with option #2 was the implication that a particular OSLC-defined priority or severity value is actually a class, itself. From the RDF Schema spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_type): A triple of the form: R rdf:type C states that C is an instance of rdfs:Class and R is an instance of C. And from the RDF Primer (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#schemaclasses): A class in RDF Schema corresponds to the generic concept of a Type or Category, somewhat like the notion of a class in object-oriented programming languages such as Java. RDF classes can be used to represent almost any category of thing, such as Web pages, people, document types, databases or abstract concepts. Conceptually, I just cannot see "OSLC high severity," for example, as a type or category, rather than an instance. Cheers, Dave -- Dave Steinberg IBM Security Systems [email protected] From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS To: [email protected], Dave Steinberg/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA Date: 06/20/2012 12:44 PM Subject: Best approach for mapping priority/severity/action to&from server defined and custom values (URIs) Dave, Can you provide a summary of why you objected to option #2 and recommended option #3 from http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmPropsSeverityPriority ? My notes are a bit weak here. This discussion came up again and a similar pattern with state transitions http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmStateTransitions Thanks, Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
