John, I agree that it's preferable to reuse existing terms, however in this case we see inconsistent use of several terms. If we introduce oslc:shortId and give clear guidance on its use, then we'll have a smoother evolution of the data. Apps can continue to use the existing terms in the inconsistent way they are being used, so there will be no breakage. Apps can add new triples using oslc:shortId to support new queries.
Regards, ___________________________________________________________________________ Arthur Ryman DE, Chief Architect, Reporting & Portfolio and Strategy Management IBM Software, Rational Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) From: John Arwe <[email protected]> To: [email protected], Date: 05/16/2013 08:57 AM Subject: Re: [oslc-core] +1 for new property oslc:shortId, OR revised recommendation on use of rdfs:label Sent by: "Oslc-Core" <[email protected]> +1 We have the need. The syntax choice, medium preference to re-use existing vocabulary rather than inventing new. Any existing vocabulary term compatible with our usage is fine. Our "today" providers have not directly expressed this need, but I expect some in the near-term pipeline (a small number of months hence) will need it, if that helps with timeframe for resolution. 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
