Dave, For a given rdf:type, you can have different Shapes for different use cases. Many Shapes could apply to the same rdf:type.
Regards, ___________________________________________________________________________ Arthur Ryman, PhD, DE Chief Architect, Project and Portfolio Management IBM Software, Rational Markham, ON, Canada | Office: 905-413-3077, Cell: 416-939-5063 Twitter | Facebook | YouTube From: David M Johnson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: John Wiegand <[email protected]> Date: 06/04/2010 12:01 PM Subject: Re: [oslc-core] programmatic selection of creation factories Sent by: [email protected] -----Arthur Ryman <[email protected]> wrote: ----- To: Nick Edgar <[email protected]> From: Arthur Ryman <[email protected]> Date: 06/03/2010 08:55PM Cc: David M Johnson/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Jim des Rivieres <[email protected]>, John Wiegand/Minneapolis/IBM@IBMUS, [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: [oslc-core] programmatic selection of creation factories The Shape has a property, oslc:describes, that refers to the type. The type doesn't change between implementations, but the Shape resource could since implementations could add properties to the type. I think we may be overstepping by associating types with shapes. Shapes should be provided for targeted use cases (creation and query) and not tied to types. That's why I (improperly) deleted oslc:describes before. Now that we have consensus to use identifiers for programmatic selection of creation factories, query capabilities and delegated UI dialogs (a proposal is forthcoming) we don't need oslc:describes to determine which to use. Do we have other use cases for oslc:describes? Do we have some outside of reporting? Thanks, - Dave _______________________________________________ Oslc-Core mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
