John, I think workgroups should apply judgement. Defining an inverse for every relation might be overkill. Equally, requiring a concrete use case for every inverse is also overkill. If it seems likely that the inverse would be useful, then the workgroup should define 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: John Arwe <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 11/16/2011 01:46 PM Subject: [oslc-core] Current best practice on links - always define inverse or wait for scenario to arise? Sent by: [email protected] We had a recent case of this with RM, where they wanted to add new vocabulary to define some relationship inverses that they discovered were needed after finalization. For new specs and for new links in existing vocabularies, when the expected target in the "forward" direction is an OSLC-defined resource, is there a current consensus on whether it is better to define an inverse link in advance of a concrete scenario versus requiring clients to query for that information and/or approaching the relevant working group to extend the domain vocabulary with the inverse only after someone articulates a concrete scenario? Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario _______________________________________________ Oslc-Core mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
