Yes well this exactly my point and the reason for my questions. From: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...> Sent: Mittwoch, 28. September 2022 15:04 To: oslc-op@...; Gentry, Edward <e.gentry@...> Cc:

If ELM can we configured to use OIDC without need for external products or extra licenses, I guess we can retire OAuth1! Then anyone using a legacy setup can be told their non-profile-conformant ELM

Hi François-Régis, Yes OAuth 1.0a would be the fall back position. But if ELM supports OIDC bi-directionally as I’ve described then we can finally leave 1.0a in the dust bin. I had a talk

Hello Ed, I would probably make this a lot simpler here. We are trying to build profiles that “work out of the box”. With that in mind, OAuth1.0a must be a requirement and OAuth2 should be

Hello All, After further consideration of the authentication section for our OSLC Link Profile,I would like to suggest that someone from IBM needs to write this. Because, while I do have plenty of

Yes fair enough I certainly meant the OSLC Config Management From: Ollerton, Patrick <pollerton@...> Sent: Montag, 26. September 2022 17:02 To: oslc-op@...; Gentry, Edward <e.gentry@...>;

Hi Ed, Apologies if I’ve got the names wrong here, but isn’t the OSLC spec called Config Mgmt? And the IBM software capability is called Global Configurations? Not meaning to be a pedant,

If I understand Patrick correctly we should always store links on both sides, just because some vendors haven’t implemented global configurations yet. This seems profoundly limiting. Why should

Hi Patrick, As I said I’m really glad to see other vendors joining the conversation. How we make links really does depend on whether we are in a global configuration aware environment or

Patrick So what is your policy for link storage? Which side stores the link? Thanks Eran

Hi Ed, I’m a Product Manager for PTC – specifically for Windchill Modeler our MBSE tool. Me and Tanu Jolly (PM for Windchill PLM) are now more engaged in this community and hoping to

Agree: ResourceShape and the list. But this is not nearly enough for a link profile. For our link profile I would suggest two sections: non-GC aware: In this case we store triples on both sides

You could just use a normative table of outgoing and incoming link types (i.e., property and inverse properties). However, it would be nice if this was machine readable, and an extension to

Ed, Jim did not accept the text as he is not sure that the “store on outgoing side” is respected by ELM. Can you comment on that. One comment I have is that it is enough that it is the 90%

I agree Ed. I would also note that OSLC Query is the only standard means available in OSLC to obtain the backlinks, regardless of how difficult or inefficient that might be. GCs and project area

Hello all, At our last meeting it was asserted that using OSLC Query for back link discovery was completely untenable for larger installations because each and every IBM-ELM project area in every

oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting When: 09/22/2022 10:00am to 11:00am (UTC-04:00) America/New York Where: https://meet.jit.si/oslc-op Organizer: Jim Amsden jamsden@... View

Ed Please review the link ownership text Link ownership In bi-derctional linking scenarios both OSLC participants are aware of links across their owned resources and enable link visibility

Hi All, I’m traveling today and so will miss our meeting this afternoon. @David Honey2, could you please arrange a meeting with John Vasta for me regarding the authentication in the link

Jim, We can discuss on the next oslc-op call. But generally, you will clone thehttps://github.com/oslc-op/oslc-specs, make changes locally using some Markdown editor, and then create a pull request