Aligning QM 2.0 and 2.1 resource shapes

Here's the
results of my analysis:

Issues to explore:

Qm 2.0
defines dcterms:subhect on TestPlan and TestCase. Should dcterms:subject
be added to TestScript, TestExecutionRecord, and TestResult? They are missing
in QM 2.0 and 2.1.

QM 2.0
defines oslc_qm:runsOnTestEnvironment on TestExecutionRecord. QM 2.0 defines
this property also on TestPlan or TestResult. Are these properties missing
in 2.0?

TestPlan:
dcterms:contributor
and creator are any in 2.0, Person in 2.1 - should be oslc:AnyResource

acp:accessControl
is not defined in QM 2.0 - should be removed

oslc_acc:accessContext
is not defined in QM 2.0 - should be removed

dcterms:relation,
is not defined in QM 2.0 - not in AM, RM or CM, should be removed

oslc_qm:runsOnTestEnvironment
is not defined in QM 2.0 - Property of TestPlan, TestResult and TestExecutionRecord
in 2.1, but only TestExecutionRecord in 2.0, probably missing

oslc:shortId
is not defined in QM 2.0 - is defined in QM, RM and QM, but should be oslc:shortTitle.
Useful for resource preview, should be added since its Zero-one

dcterms:subject
is missing in 2.1 - is defined in CM and RM (missing in AM) and should
be added.

oslc_qm:relatedChangeRequest,
and many other QM relationship properties specify specific ranges in 2.1
that are any in 2.0. I believe we agreed that range should not be specified,
and that the description indicates what the likely range would be.  These
range properties should be oslc:AnyResource.

TestCase:
dcterms:contributor
and creator are any in 2.0, Person in 2.1 - should be oslc:AnyResource

acp:accessControl
is not defined in QM 2.0 - should be removed

oslc_acc:accessContext
is not defined in QM 2.0 - should be removed

dcterms:relation,
is not defined in QM 2.0 - not in AM, RM or CM, should be removed

oslc:shortId
is not defined in QM 2.0 - is defined in QM, RM and QM, but should be oslc:shortTitle.
Useful for resource preview, should be added

dcterms:subject
is missing in 2.1 - is defined in CM and RM (missing in AM) and should
be added.

oslc_qm:relatedChangeRequest,
and many other QM relationship properties specify specific ranges in 2.1
that are any in 2.0. I believe we agreed that range should not be specified,
and that the description indicates what the likely range would be.  These
range properties should be oslc:AnyResource.

TestScript:
dcterms:contributor
and creator are any in 2.0, Person in 2.1 - should be oslc:AnyResource

acp:accessControl
is not defined in QM 2.0 - should be removed

oslc_acc:accessContext
is not defined in QM 2.0 - should be removed

dcterms:relation,
is not defined in QM 2.0 - not in AM, RM or CM, should be removed

oslc:shortId
is not defined in QM 2.0 - is defined in QM, RM and QM, but should be oslc:shortTitle.
Useful for resource preview, should be added

dcterms:subject
is missing in in 2.0 and 2.1 - is defined in CM and RM (missing in AM)
and should be added.

oslc_qm:relatedChangeRequest,
and many other QM relationship properties specify specific ranges in 2.1
that are any in 2.0. I believe we agreed that range should not be specified,
and that the description indicates what the likely range would be.  These
range properties should be oslc:AnyResource.

TestExecutionRecord:
dcterms:contributor
and creator are any in 2.0, Person in 2.1 - should be oslc:AnyResource

acp:accessControl
is not defined in QM 2.0 - should be removed

oslc_acc:accessContext
is not defined in QM 2.0 - should be removed

dcterms:relation,
is not defined in QM 2.0 - not in AM, RM or CM, should be removed

oslc:shortId
is not defined in QM 2.0 - is defined in QM, RM and QM, but should be oslc:shortTitle.
Useful for resource preview, should be added

dcterms:subject
is missing in in 2.0 and 2.1 - is defined in CM and RM (missing in AM)
and should be added.

oslc_qm:executesTestScript
is not defined in QM 2.0

oslc_qm:relatedChangeRequest,
and many other QM relationship properties specify specific ranges in 2.1
that are any in 2.0. I believe we agreed that range should not be specified,
and that the description indicates what the likely range would be.  These
range properties should be oslc:AnyResource.

TestResult:
dcterms:contributor
and creator are any in 2.0, Person in 2.1

acp:accessControl
is not defined in QM 2.0 - should be removed

oslc_acc:accessContext
is not defined in QM 2.0 - should be removed

dcterms:relation,
is not defined in QM 2.0 - not in AM, RM or CM, should be removed

oslc:shortId
is not defined in QM 2.0 - is defined in QM, RM and QM, but should be oslc:shortTitle.
Useful for resource preview, should be added

dcterms:subject
is missing in in 2.0 and 2.1 - is defined in CM and RM (missing in AM)
and should be added.

oslc_qm:runsOnTestEnvironment
is not defined in QM 2.0 - Property of TestPlan, TestResult and TestExecutionRecord
in 2.1, but only TestExecutionRecord in 2.0 probably missing

oslc_qm:reportsOnTestPlan,
and many other QM relationship properties specify specific ranges in 2.1
that are any in 2.0. I believe we agreed that range should not be specified,
and that the description indicates what the likely range would be.  These
range properties should be oslc:AnyResource.

Jim Amsden, Senior
Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle
Data
919-525-6575