http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2Issues?rev=46 looked really big and scary (this is the change list for a "small erratum"???) until I realized that only the item "OPEN V2.0 specification is missing some vocabulary elements," is what we're talking about. The email below had me thinking that the issues list would be limited to the contents of the proposed update. The errata page http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2r20110503Errata is what I was expecting. Note that it does not address part ii of the issue, in case that was unintentional. Since I lack the history, some inconsistency in 2010/2011 dates wrt RM finalization is confusing me. Your email below states "new page RmSpecificationV2r20100503, which is the RM 2.0 specification we declared final on 3rd May 2011" ... note V2r20100503 [2010 date] vs 3rd May 2011. Looking at the footer on http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2r20110503 , I see "Main.RmSpecificationV2r20110503 moved from Main.RmSpecificationV2r20100503" which makes it look like a 2010 spec was (inadvertantly?) changed to a 2011 spec. Looking at http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2r20110930 (linked to from the issues entry), I see how it addresses the vocabulary omission but not how it addresses part ii of the issue "(ii) that the connection between oslc_rm:elaboratedBy and oslc_rm:elaborates remained unclear." > You will notice that RmSpecificationV2r1 also has links the latest version of the specification. The intention is that this will link to RmSpecificationV2. I get a 404-equivalent (topic does not yet exist) on http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2r1. Assuming you meant RmSpecificationV2r20110930, but please confirm that was your intent. > When we are agreed that RmSpecificationV2r20110930 is what we want, RmSpecificationV2 will be updated Sorry if this dense, but "updated how"? Did you mean that the RmSpecificationV2 would redirect to/be treated as a potentially temporary alias for RmSpecificationV2r20110930 ?
Should we expect any changes to http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmHome , e.g. to the version and/or date columns in the table? To the RDFS vocabulary document? Process note for future: the usual practice in my W3C days was that the editors produced a diff of any proposed spec changes. Since the Twiki implementation you're using does that pretty easily, it might be a good practice to adopt in OSLC (Core at least). Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario From: Ian Green1 <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Date: 09/22/2011 12:59 PM Subject: [oslc-core] DRAFT of minor updates to RM 2.0 specification ready for review Sent by: [email protected] Hello all The minor changes to the RM 2.0 specification that we've been discussing are now in place, and ready for review. The issue list at [1] describes what has been done and why, and links to the affected pages. I've created a new page RmSpecificationV2r20110930, which is the DRAFT RM 2.0 specification with the updates to account for the errata. I've created a new page RmSpecificationV2r20100503, which is the RM 2.0 specification we declared final on 3rd May 2011, but which also includes a link to an errata, at RmSpecificationV2r20110503Errata, with previous and next versions updated. This errata describes the vocabulary terms that are being added. You will notice that RmSpecificationV2r1 also has links the latest version of the specification. The intention is that this will link to RmSpecificationV2. When we are agreed that RmSpecificationV2r20110930 is what we want, RmSpecificationV2 will be updated. I ask you to review these proposed changes and let me know as soon as possible by email if you in disagreement. Unless I hear of objections by email I will action the above on 30 September and make these changes final. [1] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmSpecificationV2Issues 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 _______________________________________________ Oslc-Core mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
