As pointed out before, the use of totalCount with paging of "other resources" seems a bit suspect. Do we really need to say that it SHOULD be the number of property values (triples)? Is this proposed definition useful? Is there a use case where someone is needing this capability? Seems like we are specing something that doesn't need to be spec'd. Maybe we should just say that totalCount is used in conjunction with query responses?
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 12/03/2010 10:01:08 AM: > From: Dave <[email protected]> > To: oslc-core <[email protected]> > Date: 12/03/2010 10:01 AM > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] oslc:totalSize Clarification > Sent by: [email protected] > > Thanks for feedback, Steve and Arthur. > > Here's what I have added to the spec: > > oslc:totalCount - This optional property indicates the total number of > results across all pages, its value should be non-negative. In the > context of a query resource, this value *SHOULD* be the total number > of result resources, i.e. the member property values that match the > query. In the context of other resources, the value *SHOULD* be the > total number of property values (i.e. RDF triples) of the resource. > > Any objections? > > Thanks, > Dave > > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net >
