+1 on Ian's language. We are in fact defining a property of the link. That property, the link label, could have nothing whatsoever to do with the object resource. I still think its useful to also offer some suggestions/common practices on how the value of the link label might be seeded with information from the object resource, however if we can't do so in a way that avoids the interpretation Jim found, then maybe we can drop that language....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 08/31/2010 04:09:17 PM: > From: Ian Green1 <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Date: 08/31/2010 04:09 PM > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Provided guidance for adding relationship labels > Sent by: [email protected] > > My understanding of the intent is that this is a property *on the link* > and is not cached data from the object resource. The anchor label is a > property of the link, and *could have nothing whatsoever* to to with the > object resource. Other properties on the link (a la AM spec. are also > admitted, however only dcterms:title is the only link property whose > meaning is defined by CM V2.0). > > I agree with Jim that the present wording leaves room for an > interpretation along the lines of cached data and I think we should strive > to prevent this interpretation. It is important that the label is on the > link, and is not in any way necessarily describing the object resource. > OSLC collaborators (consumers & providers) must not (i'd write MUST NOT if > I could) treat that link property as a description of the object resource. > > Something along these lines is what I was imagining: > > Change Management relationships to other resources are represented as > properties whose values are the URI of the object or target resource. When > a Change Management relationship property is to be presented in a user > interface, it may be helpful to provide an informative and useful textual > label for that relationship instance. (This in addition to the > relationship property URI and the object resource URI, which are also > candidates for presentation to a user.) To this end, OSLC providers MAY > suppport a dcterms:title link property in Change Management resource > representations, using the anchor approach outlined in the OSLC Core Links > Guidance. > > > I've removed the reference to UI Preview - UI Preview is for resources, > and these links are not resources. If we bring link properties and UI > Preview together, I suggest that be done elsewhere in some form of > guidance. However, I would worry then that OSLC is straying too far into > UX/UI guidelines. > > best wishes, > -ian > > [email protected] (Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB) > Chief Software Architect, Requirements Definition and Management > IBM Rational > > [email protected] wrote on 31/08/2010 20:22:27: > > > [image removed] > > > > Re: [oslc-core] Provided guidance for adding relationship labels > > > > James Conallen > > > > to: > > > > Steve K Speicher > > > > 31/08/2010 20:26 > > > > Sent by: > > > > [email protected] > > > > Cc: > > > > oslc-cm, oslc-core > > > > my 2c, > > > > I worry about guidance that that suggests that it is ok to > > essentially cache information about a resource that is being > > referenced (and managed by) on another server. If this is to be a > > practice, what are the recommendations for ensuring that this > > information remains in sync. Looking at the referenced example, what > > happens if the owner of the resource 123 changes its title to > > "Enhancement 123: Enable multi-root installs"? Will this have to be > > manually updated? If not, does the system automatically update > > properties of links whenever it detects them. > > > > While I do recognize this may be a way to save a GET call. I don't > > think it represents a best practice. > > > > <jim/> > > > > jim conallen > > CAM Lead Architect > > [email protected] > > Rational Software, IBM Software Group > > > > > > > > [image removed] Steve K Speicher---08/31/2010 02:47:42 PM---I wanted > > to call out some specification updates that was created for handling > > of relationship label > > > > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Date: 08/31/2010 02:47 PM > > Subject: [oslc-core] Provided guidance for adding relationship labels > > Sent by: [email protected] > > > > > > > > I wanted to call out some specification updates that was created for > > handling of relationship labels on URI relationship properties. Note > the > > support for this is optional but wanted to make sure this was done in a > > uniform way across implementations. Let me know if there are any issues > > > with this. > > > > http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/ > > CmSpecificationV2#Labels_for_Relationships > > > > Thanks, > > Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
