Additional QM vocabulary and shapes issues

I have run ShapeChecker
on the QM vocab and shapes and discovered the following potential issues/questions.

dcterms:relation,
was added to QM 2.1 but is not defined in QM 2.0 - this property is not
in AM, RM or CM. Does RQM need this property? Is there any harm in adding
it?

oslc:shortId was
in the RQM shapes, but is not defined in QM 2.0. oslc:shortTitle is defined
in QM, RM and AM. Useful for resource preview, should be added since its
Zero-one. But should oslc:shortId have been retained for compatibility?

oslc_qm:relatedChangeRequest,
and many other QM relationship properties specify specific ranges in 2.0
that are any in 2.1. These range properties should be oslc:AnyResource.
But should the more specific ranger constraints be retained for compatibility?

Should all the
rdfs:seeAlso properties be removed from the vocabularies as we did in core
since these are all OSLC 2.0 references.

Should rdfs:range
properties be removed from all vocabulary properties as we did in OSLC
core and CM? Some properties have multiple range values which created a
ShapeChecker error.

The property constraints
for QM resources have oslc:valueShape properties that refer to internal
CE resource shapes. Should these be removed, or updated to reference the
standard QM shapes?

oslc_qm:status
property is defined in the QM shapes, but isn't in the vocabulary.

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