Hi. (Short intro first : I've been involved only on -CM so far (and actually only implementing and not much specifying ;), and haven't read thoroughly the prior exchanges, so forgive my naive comments bellow.)
I've read http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OSLCCoreSpecDRAFT and have a few comments. I've been very pleased with the rationale explaining the seek for simplicity in the specs of OSLC, but then I'm a bit disappointed when reading further : * Abusing the "resource" word : I'm not sure I understood the whole of the intentions in calling everything resource, but I think it is too much generalized... yes, everything is a resource in Web 3 world, hence in OSLC... but I believe it would make it much more understandable to call only resource the artifacts that are managed : created, retrieved, updated and deleted through the REST APIs of the services. The rest should be "methods", "services", "endpoints", "callbacks", "descriptors", or whatever better illustrates their role. This applies for "Service Resources", "Creation Resources" and "Query Resources", in the document, I think. In the OSLC-CM V1 specs I've read before, I think the word used was "Methods" : i.e. a URL which is used to activate a REST HTTP transaction in order to manipulate resources. * Then, abusing the "URI" instead of "URL" in places Much in the sense of the previous comment, I think that URI of resources which are Methods of a REST API should be called URLs, period ;) -> s/Creation Resource URI/Factory Method URL/g and similar edits would make the specs much more simple to read. * I'm confused about the Query Resource : is this supposed to be some REST API Method living at a URL or some actual Collection Resource (as in OSLC-CM V1), that is indeed a Resource that has a URI (which may be a resolvable URL indeed) ? ... then, in the latter case, shouldn't it be named "QueryResults Resource" instead, or something less confusing ? * About the Shape Resources : I've not exactly understood the whole of the point, but ain't it reinventing existing standards like OWL and schemas/ontologies ? * RDF Examples : I'd suggest to add proper RDF/XML headers and not only excerpts of the contents/resources. Also, as being involved in implementing OSLC-CM V1, I'd be curious as to how much these new core specs would impact on OSLC-CM V2 and needed variations in implementation of the servers, but that's a topic for another discussion I think. I hope these comments will be useful, even though I've not (yet) read everything related to the Core group (minutes, archives, etc.). Best regards, -- Olivier BERGER <[email protected]> http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)
