+1 on Steve's modified language.. In particular, I found the language in the original about "bad practices on property names" to be inappropriate for general guidance on links ...Scott
Scott Bosworth | IBM Rational CTO Team | [email protected] | 919.486.2197 (w) | 919.244.3387(m) | 919.254.5271(f) [email protected] wrote on 08/29/2010 01:14:53 PM: > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > To: oslc-core <[email protected]> > Date: 08/29/2010 01:15 PM > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Addition to Link Guidance: don't make > assumptions about links > Sent by: [email protected] > > After first and second read, I proposed this modified version of the > guidance. I still think there are scenarios where putting "kind" of > relationship in the name is valid, but the guidance should state > that even if it is named this way the actual type of the target may > not be an expected one. > > Updated guidance: > > Don't make assumptions about the target of links > > Relationships in OSLC resources are at their simplest an RDF > property whose object is a URI. Some properties require and assume a > resource of a particular type as the target for a given link type. > In general however, it is desired not to make type assumptions on > the target of links. The property's purpose and name should clearly > reflect the scenarios it is supporting. Since the usage of these > relationship properties may exist for a long period of time, > specification authors should use great care in determining these. > > As resources evolve over time, and they adapt to different > situations, different types will be exposed as targets to existing > link types. Well behaved clients should gracefully handle resource > types it doesn't expect when exercising links in resources. > > Thanks, > Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 > > > > From: Dave <[email protected]> > > To: oslc-core <[email protected]> > > Date: 08/27/2010 01:48 PM > > Subject: [oslc-core] Addition to Link Guidance: don't make > > assumptions about links > > Sent by: [email protected] > > > > Jim Conallen and Ian Green wrote the guidance below on links and I've > > added it to the Link Guidance document for your review. I think it > > offers good advice and stops short of making mandates, which is also > > good. Thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Dave > > > > > > The new guidance: > > > > Don't make assumptions about the target of links > > > > Relationships in OSLC resources are at their simplest an RDF property > > whose object is a URI. Some properties require and assume a resource > > of a particular type as the target for a given link type. In general > > however, it is considered a good design not to make type assumptions > > on the target of links. It is also considered a bad practice to embed > > in the predicate name assumptions of the resource type of the object. > > For example the link type oslc:implementedByChangeRequest implies the > > target resource is a Change Request. Instead the preferred type would > > be oslc:implementedBy. > > > > As resources evolve over time, and they adapt to different situations, > > different types will be exposed as targets to existing link types. > > Well behaved clients should gracefully handle resource types it > > doesn't expect when exercising links in resources. > > > > Link: > > http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/ > > OSLCCoreLinksDRAFT#Don_t_make_assumptions_about_the > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Oslc-Core mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
