Steve,

I've moved the next workgroup meeting to February 7 because of conflicts.
Let's plan to discuss then. Thanks!

--
Samuel Padgett | IBM Rational | [email protected]



                                                                       
  From:       Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS                       
                                                                       
  To:         [email protected],                               
                                                                       
  Date:       01/24/2013 01:33 PM                                      
                                                                       
  Subject:    Re: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change request"-like 
resources -- ANY MORE FEEDBACK?
                                                                       
  Sent by:    "Oslc-Cm" <[email protected]>            
                                                                       





Fellow CM'rs,

We plan to talk about this on the January 31st call, so please either:
a) Join the call to discussion [1]
b) Provide feedback (thanks Paul! [2])

[1] -
http://open-services.net/wiki/change-management/Meeting-agendas-and-minutes/

[2] -
http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-cm_open-services.net/2012-November/000431.html


Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
http://open-services.net

> From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> To: [email protected],
> Date: 11/29/2012 01:48 PM
> Subject: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change request"-like
resources
> Sent by: "Oslc-Cm" <[email protected]>
>
> Currently, the CM 2.0 defines only 1 rdf:type of resource and we all
know
> and love that as oslc_cm:ChangeRequest.
>
> There are many other "kinds" of change requests, today we help guide
some
> scenarios that are looking for these kinds of resources by using
> oslc:usage with some known values [1],[2].
>
> Not having these usage identifiers be rdf:types has always been a little

> odd, for a number of reasons:
> - Typical way of querying and inferring the type of resource relied on
> non-standard ways
> - Associating dialogs, factories, queries without these type is a bit
off.
>
> We've already proven the need for these usage/type things.  So the names

> (ids) and concepts are still valid.
>
> My proposal:
>         In 3.0, introduce these as additional subtypes (rdfs:subClassOf
> oslc_cm:ChangeRequest) as first class OSLC-CM resource types: Defect,
> PlanItem, Task, RequirementsChangeRequest.
>
> [1] -
>
http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-cm_open-services.net/2010-June/000172.html


> [2] -
>
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2#Usage_Identifiers
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Speicher
> IBM Rational Software
> OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
> http://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


Reply via email to