Hi, I agree that the bi-directional links are likely to cause issues - one being the example I mentioned below. So believe going for uni-directional is good. But bi-directional (e.g. oslc_cm:tracksRequirement and oslc_rm:trackedBy) are part of current CM/QM/RM specs, right .. so might make sense recommending including recommendation how to treat these or at least clarify and provide rationale why moving away from that pattern?
Rgs, /N On 14 feb 2013, at 18:05, James Conallen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Nils, > > Actually the lack of guidance on how to manage back links is not that because > we don't believe back links are a good idea. It was an implementation > specific solution to an implementation specific problem (displaying and > querying for link information when in the context of the object of a link), > that quite frankly causes more harm than good over time (imho). > > The guidance re-affirms the basic nature of a link; a single directional > statement. > > We also go to great pains to not recommend the definition of 'pairs' of link > types. This is an artificial concept that again causes more harm than good, > over the long haul. > > While we don't define pairs of links, we do allow the definition of link > labels for use in user interfaces, which may be different if in the context > of the subject or the object. But this is not a separate link type predicate. > > > > Thanks, > > jim conallen > Rational Design Management (DM) Integration Architect, OSLC AM Lead > [email protected] > Rational Software, IBM Software Group > > > > <graycol.gif>Nils Kronqvist ---02/14/2013 10:21:02 AM---Hi, A question around > Links .. > > From: Nils Kronqvist <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > Date: 02/14/2013 10:21 AM > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Minutes for 13 Feb OSLC Core workgroup meeting > Sent by: "Oslc-Core" <[email protected]> > > > > Hi, > > A question around Links .. > > Links are uni-directional, but often come in pairs, e.g. > oslc_cm:tracksRequirement and oslc_rm:trackedBy. And I assume a not too > uncommon case is where you don't have write access in "the other" resource > when setting up a link -- i.e. failing to create the "back link". If for > example creating a link from RTC to another e.g. CM provider where RTC fails > to create back link, RTC will provide warning dialog and allow to back out > or proceed. > > As far as I can see there is no guidance in the specs around expected > behavior here. Needed? Is the "OSLC connected system" inconsistent when not > all back links are in place .. or .. as the > http://open-services.net/wiki/core/Find-all-links/ suggest, to find all links > you need to ask all service providers .. > > Rgs, > > /N > > Nils Kronqvist > [email protected] > phone: +46 76 1279272 > www.find-out.se > > On 13 feb 2013, at 18:41, Michael F Fiedler <[email protected]> wrote: > > Minutes: http://open-services.net/wiki/core/Meeting20130213/ > > > Regards, > Mike > > Michael Fiedler > IBM Rational Software > [email protected] > 919-254-4170 > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net > > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net >
