> "Description: This relationship is loosely coupled and has no > specific meaning. The value of this property MAY refer to another > oslc_cm:ChangeRequest resource."
This wording is ambiguous. It can be read as denying that the relationship itself has any meaning, instead of the target resource being unconstrained to any particular type. Also, the name of the property strongly suggests that there is some expectation of the type of the target resource. To capture this expectation while making it clear to consumers that they cannot count on it, you could say something like: Description: The target resource is a related change request. While the target resource SHOULD be another oslc_cm:ChangeRequest resource, the target resource MAY be any kind of resource. Regards, Jim des Rivieres | IBM Rational Software | (613) 356-5015 From: Steve K Speicher <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Date: 09/24/2010 01:59 PM Subject: [oslc-core] Proposed language / modifications to "Range" definition Sent by: [email protected] Last core meeting I took an action to propose some changes to domain specifications on how "Range" should be used for relationship properties that were not "closed". Where not "closed" implies that other kinds of resources could potentially live at the other end of the URI reference. The need was to make sure that consumers knew that the intent of the relationship was to loosely coupled and open, therefore encouraging clients to be flexible in handling the de-refencing of these relationship URIs. Here is a sample of the change for the CM spec [1] and the relatedChangeRequest relationship property: New proposed changes:: Range: any Description: This relationship is loosely coupled and has no specific meaning. The value of this property MAY refer to another oslc_cm:ChangeRequest resource. Original: Range: oslc_cm:ChangeRequest Description: This relationship is loosely coupled and has no specific meaning. Note: I made the change in the spec [1] for only the one property Looking for feedback on this proposed change. [1] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2 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
