Re: [oslc-core] Link guidance notes

Martin,

What you outline below is exactly what
I was suggesting. R is the associative object that contains the information
about the link.

Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member

OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data

919-525-6575

From:      
 "Sarabura, Martin"
<>

To:      
 "OASIS ()"
<>

Date:      
 04/18/2015 12:50 PM

Subject:    
   [oslc-core]
Link guidance notes

Sent by:    
   <>

I had another read through the document.

 

The following sentence appears twice in
section 2.1:

Well behaved clients should gracefully
handle resource types they don't expect when exercising links in resources.

 

Following on Jim's discussion at the last
meeting regarding adding rich semantics to a link that goes beyond simple
reification, what kind of approach are you considering? It seems to me
we could achieve that result by creating a resource that represents the
rich content for the link, then putting it between the source and target:

If A -> B is the link, and -> has
some rich content, then create

A -> R -> B where R is a resource
containing the rich content.

 

PTC Integrity currently uses a name and
bit flags to represent the reified content - can't even add a timestamp
to the relationship - and that works for our customers. If a customer requested
richer content I would recommend the above approach but mostly because
adding reification would be a challenge for us.

 

I'm interesting in hearing what you recommend
Jim, if not the above approach.

 

 

Martin Sarabura

R&D Fellow, PTC