Hi
I now went through the RM 2.0 specification again, comparing the text to the original 2.0 on open-services.net. Here’s a summary of the changes I have made.
Does it make sense to share a screen during our telco, and going through these changes live?
Jim! I have two questions first:
Vocabulary
I compared to the content on
http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/RmVocabulary
The dcterms:description is not shown in html, but it exists correctly in the ttl file!
Q: How do we make the dcterms:description
text visible? It is visible on open-services.net
Shapes
Q: Why is the resource name preceded
with "rm#"?
Q: Shape properties are ordered alphabetically,
which makes less sense, compared to the more intuitive listing on open-services. Can we control that?
SUMMARY of CHANGES
1. Introduction
I changed the 1st paragraph,where I refer to oslc3.0 instead of 2.0.
1.2 Terminology
I renamed “Service Provider” as “Server”, and changed its definition
I renamed “Service Consumer” as “Client”, and changed its definition
à Throughout the paper, I also change Provider/consumer, with Server/Client.
2. Base Requirements
I state “This specification is based on [OSLCCore3]”, insteasd of the original reference to “OSLC 2.0”
I replaced "Service Provider Resources" with "Discovery". Also, I added to the original text ("OSLC servers MAY provide a Service Provider Catalog,
MUST provide a Service Provider resource"), the following: ", and MAY provide other forms of discovery described in Core 3.0 Discovery."
2.2 Specification Versioning
I removed all additional text, and simply refer to core3.0
2.8 Requesting and Updating Properties
I copied from CM specs.
2.9 Labels for Relationships
I copied from CM specs.
I still have the job of checking the Shapes tables (there are differences to fix). I plan to do that before our Thursday meeting.
regards
______________________________
Jad El-khoury, PhD
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Mechatronics Division
Brinellvägen 83, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: +46(0)8 790 6877 Mobile: +46(0)70 773 93 45
,
www.kth.se
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Jim Amsden
Sent: 11 January 2018 20:32
To:
Subject: [oslc-domains] Reconciling 2.0 domain specification base requirements with OSLC Core 3.0
I went through the AM 2.0 specification comparing the base requirements with CM 3.0. I found the following potential incompatibilities with Core 3.0:
1. RDF serialization format - AM specifies MUST for RDF/XML which is OK, but doesn’t mention turtle or json-ld. - Recommendation: change to follow Core 3.0 RDF serialization formats, including
proposal to change core RDF serialization formats clauses.
2. Discovery - AM says ServiceProvider resource is MUST, Core MAY - Recommendation: ok to strengthen compliance level in a domain spec, so no problem. However this should just say MUST support
OSLC discovery, and need not say exactly how. Servers just follow core which already covers OSLC 2.0 discovery compatibility.
So not much there. Other domain specs should retain the base capabilities and supporting text from the OSLC 2.0 specifications unless there's some compelling reason they can't. In particular, the
RM spec should not have copied the CM base requirements, but instead stick with the ones in the RM 2.0 spec.
Here's the details:
Architecture Management
Thu Jan 11 09:39:53 EST 2018
Analyzing the differences between
CM 3.0 and
AM 2.0
Base Requirements.
The result of this analysis applies to the subsections of the document as well. Ideally these would be cloned and be quite similar for each domain specification.
CM 3.0 Requirement
Level
Meaning
AM 2.0 Differences
Unknown properties and content
may/
must
OSLC servers
mayignore unknown content and OSLC clients
mustpreserve unknown content
Client MUST is in a separate entry.
Resource Operations
must
OSLC service
mustsupport resource operations via standard HTTP operations
Resource Paging
may
OSLC servers
mayprovide paging for resources but only when specifically requested by client
Paging is SHOULD for query results, MAY on large resource entity response bodies.
Partial Resource Representations
must
OSLC servers
mustsupport request for a subset of a resource’s properties via the oslc.properties URL parameter
retrieval via HTTP GET
AM is MAY support selective properties
Partial Update
may
OSLC servers
maysupport partial update of resources using [LDPPatch], or via HTTP PUT.
Discovery
may/
should
OSLC servers
shouldprovide a ServiceProvider resource for Core v2 compatibility,
mayprovide a ServiceProviderCatalog, and
mayprovide other forms of discovery described in Core 3.0 Discovery.
Specifically states MUST provide ServiceProvider resource. Servers MAY support ServiceProviderCatalog
Creation Factories
must
OSLC servers
mustprovide LDPC creation factories to enable resource creation of Change Management resources via
HTTP POST
Creation factory capability is MAY, and also servers MAY support creation factories in other resource serialization formats indicated
with oslc:usage.
Query Capabilities
should
OSLC servers
shouldprovide query capabilities to enable clients to query for resources
query capability is a MUST
Query Syntax
should/
may
OSLC query capabilities
shouldsupport the OSLC Core Query Syntax and
mayuse other query syntax
Delegated UI Dialogs
must/
should
OSLC Services
mustoffer delegated UI dialogs (creation and selections) specified via OSLC Core 3.0 Delegated Dialogs
and shouldinclude discovery through a ServiceProvider resource for OSLC v2 compatibility
Delegated selection UI is SHOULD, delegated creation dialog is separate entry and MAY.
UI Preview
should
OSLC Services
shouldoffer UI previews for resources that may be referenced by other resources specified via OSLC
Core 3.0 Preview and shouldinclude discovery through a server resource for OSLC v2 compatibility
Authentication
may
OSLC Services
shouldfollow the recommendations for Authentication specified in [OSLCCore3]
SHOULD support one of the OSLC Core recommendations, Has separate MAY for each one (HTTP Basic, OAuth, Form)
Error Responses
should
OSLC Services
shouldprovide error responses using OSLC Core 3.0 defined error formats
Turtle Representations
must
OSLC servers
mustprovide a Turtle representation for HTTP GET requests and
shouldsupport Turtle representations on POST and PUT requests.
RDF/XML Representations
should
OSLC servers
shouldprovide an RDF/XML representation for HTTP GET requests and
shouldsupport RDF/XML representations on POST and PUT requests for compatibility with Change Management
2.0.
RDF/XML is MUST
XML Representations
should
OSLC servers
shouldprovide a XML representation for HTTP GET, POST and PUT requests that conform to the Core
2.0 Guidelines for XML.
JSON Representations
must
OSLC servers
mustprovide JSON-LD representations for HTTP GET, POST and PUT requests that conform to the Core
Guidelines for JSON-LD
HTML Representations
should
OSLC servers
shouldprovide HTML representations for HTTP GET requests
Other Differences:
Servers MUST use absolute URIs - not sure this is a good idea, but its there, so ok to keep it.
Servers MUST support If-Match header on PUT and DELETE - note mentioned in CM, but may be in Core 3.0
Unique AM Link Type Query Capability
CM does not specify which HTTP resource operations may, must, or should be provided - AM say PUT & DELETE are SHOULD, may be covered in Core.
Specifically states servers SHOULD support paging for queries
Potential conflicts with OSLC Core 3.0:
RDF serialization format - AM specifies MUST for RDF/XML which is OK, but doesn’t mention turtle or json-ld. - Recommendation: change to follow Core 3.0 RDF serialization formats
Discovery - AM says ServiceProvider resource is MUST, Core MAY - Recommendation: ok to strengthen compliance level, so no problem, should just say MUST support OSLC discovery, and need not
say exactly how. Servers just follow core.
Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
919-525-6575
