Ian, I think this is almost an Errata. Seems like these are omissions. In general, it would be useful to include the inverse of any defined relation.
Regards, ___________________________________________________________________________ Arthur Ryman DE, PPM & Reporting Chief Architect IBM Software, Rational Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) From: Ian Green1 <[email protected]> To: [email protected], community <[email protected]> Date: 09/07/2011 04:44 PM Subject: [oslc] Adding vocabulary terms to OSLC RM namespace Sent by: [email protected] Hello all The RM workgroup has identified the need for some vocabulary elements that have not been specified in any known published vocabulary. In brief, we'd like to extend the OSLC RM vocabulary with two predicates: oslc_rm:elaborates oslc_rm:specifies The question is: how should the RM workgroup proceed in order that these additional vocabulary terms be published as part of the OSLC family of specifications. We are not considering a change to the 2.0 specification, rather the creation of a new specification, or some formally defined extension, say, OSLC RM 2.1, which would additionally document these terms. It seems rather onerous to have to go through the full OSLC process for such a change. Considering this to be a new "specification" seems excessive, but it is not clear to me that there is any other way for OSLC to release materials. Any views on how to proceed? best wishes, -ian [email protected] (Ian Green1/UK/IBM@IBMGB) Chief Software Architect, Requirements Definition and Management IBM Rational 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 _______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net
