Agree that this sounds like an interesting registry. I also agree that what the spec says is quite restrictive in the sense of: 1) it doesn't allow for providers that don't fit any domain and 2) along these same lines, doesn't allow for pre-spec or proprietary explorations to introduce "private domains".
To accommodate these two cases, I see 3 different alternatives: a. Just use the core namespace as Joe suggested b. Invent a "private domain" namespace and use that c. Create an OSLC WG, create a spec to support this, then use that namespace Doing (a) requires us to modify the definition or intention in the spec, which I think is the most desirable. Doing (b) has nice qualities but again would make use issue some changes to the spec. Finally (c) is what we have today but requires a little overhead. If there is the possibility of tweaking the spec, not making oslc:domain required on oslc:Service. Though this has some breaking possibilities that we should avoid. I believe the other options mentioned provide for the desired use case without impacting many, if any, clients. Thanks, Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 > From: Arthur Ryman <[email protected]> > To: Joe Ross/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > Date: 08/26/2011 08:00 AM > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] domain URL for Service that supports creation/query > of Service Provider resources > Sent by: [email protected] > > Joe, > > Your Service Provider registry service sounds interesting. > > I am a little concerned about you using http://open-services.net/ns/core# > as the domain since we haven't specified what that would mean. Here is the > definition of what a Domain is: > > OSLC Domain: an OSLC Domain is one ALM or PLM topic area such as Change > Management, Requirements management or Automation. Each OSLC Domain will > have its own OSLC specification that complies with this Core > specification. > > I think we should have a spec that outlines the types of resources in the > domain. You have selected just one type of core resource. Perhaps you > should specify that and coin a URI for it? > > Regards, > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Arthur Ryman > > DE, PPM & Reporting Chief Architect > IBM Software, Rational > Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) > > > > > > From: > Joe Ross <[email protected]> > To: > [email protected] > Date: > 08/25/2011 10:49 PM > Subject: > [oslc-core] domain URL for Service that supports creation/query of Service > Provider resources > Sent by: > [email protected] > > > > > In Tivoli, we are creating a Provider Registry that is itself implemented > as a Service Provider (a Service Provider for Service Provider resources). > We want to do this, so that we can support creation of Service Provider > records using a Creation Factory and querying for Service Providers using > a Query Capability. > > As part of defining the Service, we need to provide an oslc:domain with > namespace URI. Does it make sense for us to use the OSLC Core namespace > URI (http://open-services.net/ns/core# ) for this? That seems logical > since all of the resources we are supporting in this Provider Registry > Service Provider are defined in the OSLC Core spec. > > Thanks much, > > ================================================ > Joe Ross/Austin/IBM, [email protected] > Tivoli Autonomic Computing & Component Technologies > 512-286-8311, T/L 363-8311_______________________________________________ > 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
