> I think the bar for extending the query language required by OSLC > Core should be very high.
Query Syntax is already optional. Even if a domain spec requires it, all the query parameters it defines are optional so the domain spec would have to be explicit about which QPs it requires in order to have any effective meaning. Just saying "Query syntax is required" is semantically empty: > An OSLC domain specification MAY use some or all of these query parameters, and SHOULD use these rather than defining new query parameters that have the same or very similar meanings. [1] So what's the harm in defining new composable syntax extensions, especially if they cover new ground functionally? We should foist a tower of Babylon on the clients instead? As long as there are sufficient scenarios to make it a broad-based concern, and it is composable like the others are today, I'm failing to see why we would discourage it. "Broad-based concern" is a fairly high bar already. [1] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OSLCCoreSpecQuery Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
