CM WG, In re-reviewing the text on "link labels" [1], it appears that there isn't enough guidance given on how to do the right thing (use link labels from target resource) versus storing redundant information in reified statements (as described in the CM spec).
Here is a proposal to clarify this intent and suggest appropriate behavior: Change Management relationships to other resources are represented by RDF properties. Instances of a relationship - often called links - are RDF triples whose predicate is the property, and whose value (aka object) is the URI of target resource. When a Change Management link is to be presented in a user interface, it may be helpful to display an informative and useful textual label instead of or in addition to the URI. It is recommended to use either a property from the target resource such as dcterms:title or retrieve a label for presentation by retrieving the target resource's OSLCUIPreview. In the case where a relationship (a triple) requires a unique label that is not available from the target resource, only then OSLC providers MAY support a dcterms:title link property in Change Management resource representations, using the anchor approach outlined in the OSLC Core Links Guidance. Note, I'm CC'ing the Core WG as this text is not unique to CM spec. It was adopted by other domains as well, so wanted to send for awareness. If anyone has any objections to this change, please let me know. [1] - http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2#Labels_for_Relationships Thanks, Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
