RE: [oslc-core] oslc:range property values.

OK with me.

Nick.

Jim Amsden---02/24/2016 12:47:25 PM---I could go along with that. Nick? Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member

From:        Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
To:        "OSLC Core TC ()" <>
Date:        02/24/2016 12:47 PM
Subject:        RE: [oslc-core] oslc:range property values.
Sent by:        <>

I could go along with that. Nick?

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

From:        Jad El-Khoury <>
To:        "OSLC Core TC ()" <>
Date:        02/24/2016 03:33 PM
Subject:        RE: [oslc-core] oslc:range property values.
Sent by:        <>

Hi,
 
>in the shape file: "For object properties, an allowed object resource type." 
>Change to: "For object properties, specifies what the object resource type is expected to be, but that is not necessarily the case." 

I believe “but that is not necessarily the case” raises more confusion than it helps. It almost gives the impression that the value given would be almost unreliable.
I think the first part alone (“For object properties, specifies what the object resource type is expected to be”)  is weak and clear enough.
 
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: 22 February 2016 19:33
To: OSLC Core TC ()
Subject: Re: [oslc-core] oslc:range property values.
 
It was just a note and should have been:
allowedValue - unspecified oslc:valueType 
defaultvalue - unspecified oslc:valueType
 These two properties don't specify a valueType since they could be literal or object values. So they should not have any oslc:range specified either.

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

From:        Nick Crossley/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS
To:        Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:        "OSLC Core TC ()" <>
Date:        02/22/2016 12:06 PM
Subject:        Re: [oslc-core] oslc:range property values.
Sent by:        <>

I'm unsure what you mean by these two: 
allowedValue - unspecified oslc:valueType 
defaultvalue - specified oslc:valueType
I'm fine with everything else.

Nick. 
Jim Amsden---02/22/2016 08:17:04 AM---At the last Core TC meeting I was assigned the following actions: Weaken the description of range so

From: Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
To: "OSLC Core TC ()" <>
Date: 02/22/2016 08:17 AM
Subject: [oslc-core] oslc:range property values.
Sent by: <>

At the last Core TC meeting I was assigned the following actions: 
Weaken the description of range so that it is recommended types, not required types
Create an inventory of core object properties that could have a type and propose one
Send out an email with this information and get feedback whether this should be included in the spec or not. 
Below are the results. Take a look at the proposed oslc:range values and see if these are 1) useful and 2) not over-constraining server implementations or domain usages.

We should schedule a vote on this, and if adopted I will add the oslc:range values to the property shapes.

1. oslc:range property description: 

In the specification body: The object resource SHOULD be any of the specified oslc:range types, but no inferencing is intended if the actual target resource is or is not one of these types. This is very different semantics than rdfs:range which does have inferencing implications. 

This may already be weak enough. 

in the shape file: "For object properties, an allowed object resource type." 
Change to: "For object properties, specifies what the object resource type is expected to be, but that is not necessarily the case." 

2. Proposed oslc:range values for object properties:

Common Properties: 
contributor - foaf:Agent
creator - foaf:Agent
relation
type - rdf:type
member
serviceProvider - ServiceProvider
instanceShape - ResourceShape
discussedBy - oslc:Discussion
modifiedBy - foaf:Agent
Comment 
inReplyTo - oslc:Comment
Compact 
icon
largePreview - oslc:Preview
smallPreview - oslc:Preview
CreationFactory 
creation - ldp:Container
resourceShape - oslc:ResourceShape
resourceType - rdf:type
usage
Dialog 
resourceShape - oslc:ResourceShape
resourceType - rdf:type
usage
Discussion 
comment - oslc:Comment
discussionAbout
Error 
extendedError - oslc:ExtendedError
ExtendedError 
moreInfo
OAuthConfiguration 
oauthRequestTokenURI
authorizationURI
oauthAccessTokenURI
PrefixDefinition 
prefixBase
Preview 
document
Publisher 
icon
QueryCapability 
queryBase
resourceShape - oslc:ResourceShape
resourceType - rdf:type
usage
ResourceShape 
describes
property - oslc:Property
allowedValues - oslc:AllowedValues
allowedValue - unspecified oslc:valueType
defaultvalue - specified oslc:valueType
occurs - oslc:Cardinality
propertyDefinition - rdf:Property
range - rdf:type
representation - oslc:Representation
valueShape - oslc:ResourceShape
valueType - oslc:ResourceValueType
Service 
domain
creationFactory - oslc:CreationFactory
queryCapability - oslc:QueryCapability
selectionDialog - oslc:Dialog
creationDialog - oslc:Dialog
usage
ServiceProvider 
publisher - oslc:Publisher
service - oslc:Service
details
prefixDefinition - oslc:PrefixDefinition
oauthConfiguration - oslc:OAuthConfiguration
ServiceProviderCatalog 
domain
publisher - oslc:Publisher
serviceProvider - oslc:ServiceProvider
serviceProviderCatalog - oslc:ServiceProviderCatalog
oauthConfiguration - oslc:OAuthConfiguration
Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
919-525-6575