John, I'd appreciate a demo so I can understand better what you are doing. After that, I'll be in a better position to say if any of these properties should be in the shape resource.
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: 11/12/2013 05:39 PM Subject: Re: [oslc-core] today's meeting - authoring extensions vs shapes Sent by: "Oslc-Core" <[email protected]> Adding them to shapes would not be my first choice, they're fairly authoring-specific ... useful for converting to wiki format. I have 3 now: - section title (common properties, domain blah extensions) for within wiki table, since we like to partition common from domain adds - row order within the wiki table/section (can probably use seq for this in the end) - For resource ref rows: "It is likely that the target of the link is an XYZ, but this is not guaranteed to be the case." Give it the XYZ value, and the code will add the boilerplate containing it to the desc. If you're dead convinced any of that belongs in shapes-proper I'm unlikely to object. The 3rd one is closest to being a yes there, but it still only occurs in the wiki/spec tables I think. Concrete implementations I'm guessing would change the Range=Any to be Range=XYZ if that's what they find useful as the link target, but if experience shows otherwise who am I to argue. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario From: Arthur Ryman <[email protected]> To: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, Cc: [email protected], "Oslc-Core" <[email protected]> Date: 11/06/2013 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [oslc-core] today's meeting John, Are the extension properties candidates for the Shapes spec? 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: 11/06/2013 10:19 AM Subject: [oslc-core] today's meeting Sent by: "Oslc-Core" <[email protected]> FYI/regrets-like: I will have to swap over to an executive call for about 10 minutes, probably nearer the start but time is not exact (someone will be poking me on chat when it's time). agenda += (wrt Actions) the proposal draft does include a namespace; would be useful to see if Core is OK with that choice or wants a different one. The "images not showing" problem may be a website issue, I've asked the webmaster to look at something suspect I found this morning. agenda += (new topic, potentially related to vocabulary guidance work) I've been working on some tools to help with spec authoring - specifically the resource definition tables. In the course of that, I've come across the need for some extension properties (2, so far). It would be convenient to have a properly allocated namespace for those, even if it's not mature enough to work deeply in public just yet (I want to have prototype working first, and it's not there yet). 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 _______________________________________________ Oslc-Core mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
