I haven't heard any objections so I plan to make these changes today and I will put "going FINAL" on the agenda for the tomorrow's Core Workgroup meeting.
Thanks, Dave On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Dave <[email protected]> wrote: > Now that OSLC-QM v2 and OSLC-RM v2 have gone final, and are both based > on OSLC Core v2, I believe we are ready to declare Core v2 FINAL. > > But, there are a couple (3) of small changes (below) that would like > to get in before we do. The three corrections and clarifications below > came up during IBM-internal reviews of the OSLC Tutorial. I would like > to propose that we make these changes to Core now, and then move to > FINAL at our meeting next week. > > Does anybody have any thoughts, objections, suggestions or other > feedback on these changes? > > > *** 1 *** Clarify description of Service Provider Catalog > > Reason: Current text is vague about purpose of catalog. > > OLD TEXT > "Service Provider Catalogs are used in the discovery of OSLC Service > Providers, to simplify the configuration of tools that will integrate > with providers of OSLC-defined services. These catalogs may contain > contain other nested catalogs as well as service providers." > > NEW TEXT > "An OSLC implementation that offers one or more Service Provider > resources (see below), MAY also provide Service Provider Catalog to > enable OSLC clients to find Service Providers offered. These catalogs > may contain other nested catalogs as well as service providers." > > > *** 2 *** Correction: don't encourage use of alternative Query Syntax > > Reason: Implementations can offer alternative query syntaxes, but we > don't need to mention that in the Core spec and we definitely should > not encourage domain workgroups to invent new syntaxes. > > REMOVE TEXT (from Query Syntax section) > "OSLC domain specifications MAY define their own syntax for expressing > query criteria in a string" > > > *** 3 *** Correction: remove "occurs" column from Common Properties > > Reasons: a) when we define common properties we are not defining > resources, so it does not make sense to specify an occurs value and b) > we expect domain specifications to decide the right "occurs" value > when they define their resources. > > > Thanks, > Dave > > -- > David M. Johnson > OSLC Core Workgroup Lead > IBM Rational Software >
