Jad,
Adding my comments below in green
Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
919-525-6575
From:
Jad El-Khoury <>
To:
Nicholas Crossley <>
Cc:
""
<>
Date:
04/19/2018 03:58 PM
Subject:
RE: [oslc-domains]
[OSLC Domains] Actions on the TC reviews
Sent by:
<>
Thanks
Nick! Got it.
I have updated the RM document
based on discussions/decisions today. We are almost done.
What is left? I have 2 sanity
checks, 3 problems I cannot find/understand, 2 suggestions for text we
need to decide if we want to introduce or not.
Martin! Maybe I can
get your input on those?
All! What is
your input on the last 2 entries?
Specification:
Review
CommentStatusActions
left
Copyright notice should
be 2018Should
be produced by ReSpecJad:
It is already “Copyright © OASIS Open 2018. All Rights Reserved.” Under
the “Notices” section.Martin:
Can you identify if this is still
a problem?
Sec 1 4th sentence:
… were created by the OSLC Domains TC.Jad:
I did the suggested change, but not closed yet.
Martin:
A sanity check: the scenarios and
specs were created under open-services (not exactly this domains
TC). Is it still OK to take the suggested text?
Terminology section should
be marked Non-normative and maybe use same formatting as in https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/oslc-core/trunk/specs/config/oslc-config-mgt.html#terminology?I think the convention
is that every non-normative sections should be marked as such. We may have
treated nested sections of non-normative sections as non-normative, but
perhaps we shouldn't do that. A non-normative section could contain a normative
subsection, and there's no way to indicate that other than by not including
the non-normative tag.Jad:
A change is done, but not closed yet
Martin:
Sanity check: The whole of Introduction
section is marked non-normative. If we only mark Terminology as non-normamtive,
what does this mean for the other subsections? ConfigMangement also only
mark some subsections as non-normative.
Vocabulary:
Review
CommentStatusActions
left
Use a more current date
under the title?Positioning
of the date is governed by OASIS publishing guidelines. Generally ReSpec
puts in the right place. The actual date value is based on the document
state and when it is published, or when votes are taken to change state. Martin:
Can you please clarify? I think
the date is automated.
Same notes re status, copyright
noticeI thought
this was covered by ReSpecJad:
* Status text is not controlled
by the RM document.
* It is already “Copyright © OASIS
Open 2018. All Rights Reserved.” Under the “Notices” section. Any other
place you are referring to?Martin:
Can you identify if this is still
a problem?
Shouldn’t we have a non-normative
recommendation for how to represent a tree structure in these collections?
The only real option available here is the oslc_rm:uses property. Presumably
it can include another requirements collection; thus creating a hierarchy.
Since it is the only option then presumably everybody will figure that
out but it’s such a common scenario (ReqIF, Integrity LM) that it seems
worth mentioning – or some other approach if oslc_rm:uses is not desirable
for some reason.RequirementCollection
has the oslc_rm:uses property, so it supports hierarchies of collections.
Not sure this needs further explanation. RDNG does not appear to allow
collections to be added to collections. Martin:
We have discussed this during a
telco but don’t recall a decision.
I suggest we don’t add such text
at this stage.
Another philosophical question,
what is the granularity of Requirements Collections in relation to Service
Provider (or LDPC)? I can see them being identical, or, it could be that
there are many requirements collections within a given service provider.
What would be our (presumably non-normative) recommendation for how to
design this?There
is no connection between service providers, LDPCs or RequirementCollection.
There is no constraint that the requirements in a collection have to be
from the same service provider, but I suppose they often are. Martin:
We have discussed this during a
telco but don’t recall a decision.
I suggest we don’t add such text
at this stage.
______________________________
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: Nicholas Crossley [mailto:]
Sent: 19 April 2018 16:55
To: Jad El-Khoury <>
Cc: Nicholas Crossley <>;
Subject: RE: [oslc-domains] [OSLC Domains] Actions on the TC reviews
I meant that I believe the original text
was intended to be 'posed'. With an inanimate 'solution component' as the
thing doing the posing, there is not much difference between 'imposed'
and 'posed', and 'imposed' is both more common and consistent with the
usage later in the sentence.
Nick.
From: Jad El-Khoury
<>
To: Nicholas
Crossley <>
Cc: ""
<>
Date: 04/19/2018
04:53 AM
Subject: RE:
[oslc-domains] [OSLC Domains] Actions on the TC reviews
Sent by: <>
Thanks Nick
with “I read this as 'posed'”, I assume you mean I read this as 'imposed',
right? Your suggested text says ‘imposed”, so wondering which you meant.
I will otherwise also take it your other suggested changed. But won’t
have time to introduce them before our telco today
/Jad
From: Nicholas Crossley [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2018 00:53
To: Jad El-Khoury <>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [oslc-domains] [OSLC Domains] Actions on the TC reviews
Jad,
Here are my comments:
It is perfectly acceptable for us to correct, expand, or clarify descriptions
of existing vocabulary terms, properties in shapes, etc. - in fact, we
have done so for Core 3.0 in several areas. We can also (of course) add
new terms. We cannot remove existing terms, and we should not completely
change the meaning of an existing term.
In the new text about relationship properties and the reification technique,
personally I would prefer to see some form of caution about the security/access
concern - perhaps along these lines:
Implementers should take care that including the label or other properties
of the target of a relationship within the RDF published for the source
of that relationship does not expose data to which the reader should not
have access.
However, I do not feel strongly enough about this to insist on such a change.
"possed by a solution component" - I read this as 'posed'. Since
we also use 'impose' later in the description, I suggest we be consistent
and use that here, so the full text would read:
A condition or capability needed by a stakeholder, or imposed by a solution
component, to address a need, solve a problem, achieve an objective, satisfy
a contract, standard, specification, or other formally imposed documents.
Nick.
From: Jad El-Khoury
<>
To: ""
<>
Date: 04/03/2018
03:49 PM
Subject: [oslc-domains]
[OSLC Domains] Actions on the TC reviews
Sent by: <>
Dear all,
I have now made the suggested changes to the RM specs, raised from the
latest discussion on “Reified relationships in RM domain”.
I order to finalize the review comments I received from Martin & Mark,
I would love to get your input on some of the remaining issues.
Martin, Mark, Jim & Nick!
Can I ask for your input on specific comments raised in the document https://github.com/oasis-tcs/oslc-domains/blob/master/rm/OSLC%20RM%20TC%20Reviews.docx
It is also attached for your convenience.
I have tagged each row where I need your input with your name.
Please feel free to simply add your respond in that same column “action
left” and I can take it from there.
Otherwise, the only remaining issue that we are awaiting a decision from
the Core TC relates to “resource formats” (rdf/xml, turtle).
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
[attachment "OSLC RM TC Reviews.docx" deleted by Nicholas Crossley/Seattle/Contr/IBM]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.oasis-2Dopen.org_apps_org_workgroup_portal_my-5Fworkgroups.php&d=DwIBAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=GjwCRqtPs7eIJIYQ2Ts1FtMhYFjprGd8jgbGBRR0LKQ&m=JbJZyX88tm__0WwcHpVbSTiG5NTHR2foggRWlbjtq-g&s=VJmi0btt1hIAhJbjmlQHcMsSnI5Q6tszlqR1jymPEKY&e=
