Either formulation works for me. The only "complication" I see in yours Jim is that it could be read to differentiate between "complete" and "incomplete" representations, so we'd have to adjust my strawman for explaining incomplete as well. Netting it out: - entity body is always a resource representation - resource representation MAY be incomplete - resource representation [whether complete or not] is a set of triples that provide initial values... ala previous strawman
Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario From: James Conallen/Philadelphia/IBM To: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS Cc: [email protected], [email protected] Date: 01/02/2012 08:00 AM Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Buglet in Core 2.0 - non-exemplary(?) use of Change Request I agree that we should probably remove the specific term "change request". Not to be too nit picky however, can not the the body of the resource be complete as well as incomplete? Perhaps another straw man proposal: whose entity body is resource representation, that MAY be arbitrarily incomplete I added arbitrarily to help explain the incomplete part. Cheers, jim conallen Rational Design Management (DM) Lead Architect, OSLC AM Lead [email protected] Rational Software, IBM Software Group From: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS To: [email protected] Date: 12/30/2011 03:09 PM Subject: [oslc-core] Buglet in Core 2.0 - non-exemplary(?) use of Change Request Sent by: [email protected] Stumbled across the excerpt below at [1]: note the phrase "content body is a change request resource definition ". Unless "change request" is intended to be a term of art that I don't recognize (if so, just a different problem), this could easily be read to mean than an OSLC CM 2.0 Change Request [2] is the only input allowed to pre-fill the creation dialog ... which I'm pretty sure was not the intent. I don't get much more satisfaction thinking of it as a (HTTP) PATCH document, especially in this context where POST is explicitly called out. I'm guessing that a change like the following is needed, so here's a strawman proposal: from: whose content body is a change request resource definition to to: whose entity body is an incomplete resource representation to We might then be faulted for not defining what an "incomplete" resource is, and for failing to say what the relationship is between the incomplete resource and the (ultimately) newly created resource is. I could answer that with the following strawman (to be inserted where convenient in context): The incomplete resource representation provides a template for how to pre-fill the creation form. It is simply a set of triples whose predicates and corresponding object values provide initial values for the resource being created via the form. Prefilling Creation Dialogs Service providers MAY support receiving a POST request whose content body is a change request resource definition to the Creation Dialog URI to retrieve a URI that represents the embedded page to be used. Service providers MUST respond with a response status of 201 (Created) with the response header Location whose value is the URI to request the newly created form. [1] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreSpecification?sortcol=table;table=up;up=#Dialog_Resizing then page UP one [2] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2?sortcol=table;up=#Resource_ChangeRequest 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
