Nick's point is a good one - in practice, most resources will have provider extensions. That said, it would be valuable to providers to have a documented shape that is a starting point for each OSLC-defined resource. Perhaps each domain spec include a shape for the resources it defines, and possibly multiple shapes - e.g. one for creation or one for query? This would be a big help for services providers.
Dave, not sure if you were recommending that we put "live" shape resources at specific open-services.net uris? This is an interesting idea, though I'm not sure we understand the QoS needs and whether the open-services.net infrastructure could adequately support the performance characteristics needed. Unless we really want to push on this question, I'd suggest we document the domain resource shapes in the wiki. > Nick Crossley > > > Presumably I misunderstood, because I always thought the provider- > specific properties would be described in the shape - that is, your > choice 2(b). I do not consider this a new feature added during > convergence, since we have always said that providers can add extra > properties, and we have said that resource shapes are there (amongst > other things) to help during query - so surely providers should put > their added properties into the shape. I fully agree such > properties must use a different name space. > > For this reason, I do not see a good argument for putting resource > shapes on open-services.net, since such shapes would not be the ones > linked from any real resources. > > Nick. > > > > From: Dave <[email protected]> > > We expect that OSLC domain specifications will specify Resource Shapes > for some resources. How will we provide these shapes and can providers > extend them? Consider these two question: > > 1) Should we make OSLC defined shapes available at open-services.net > or do we expect that providers will each provide these shapes as part > of their implementation? My opinion: we should do both. Make shapes > available on open-services.net and recommend that allow providers to > provide them as well. > > 2) If we allow implementations to provide the specified shapes, what > are the requirements? What changes are implementations allowed to > make? Can they add new "custom" properties? I have two opinions on > this one: > a) Implementation must provide the OSLC Defined Resource shapes > verbatim with no changes and no additional properties. Resource Shape > Extensibility is a new feature not in the spec and we shouldn't add > new features during convergence. > b) Implementations must not remove or add any properties to an OSLC > defined resource shape, but may add new custom properties. To prevent > conflicts, for custom properties, implementations should define > entirely new properties in an entirely implementation-specific > namespace. > > Thanks, > - Dave > Scott Bosworth | IBM Rational CTO Team | [email protected] | 919.486.2197 (w) | 919.244.3387(m) | 919.254.5271(f)
