Date   

Re: Link profiles

David Honey2
 

Re: We should reify the concept of link beyond just a single predicate

OSLC avoids and discourages the use of reification. It can make querying problematic, especially for OSLC query. I don’t think we should set a precedent just for this use case.

 

From: Gentry, Edward <e.gentry@...>
Sent: 27 May 2022 08:00
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>; Robert Baillargeon <rbaillargeon@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; oslc-op@...; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

A few ideas and observations and a concrete proposal: A helpful idea was proposed by our French Sodius Colleague whose name escapes me. He suggested in a conversation after our last call – and he’ll correct me if I don’t represent him well

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

A few ideas and observations and a concrete proposal:

 

  • A helpful idea was proposed by our French Sodius Colleague whose name escapes me.  He suggested in a conversation after our last call – and he’ll correct me if I don’t represent him well - that resource shapes should be extended so that tools could indicate which links they index.

 

  • @Jim Amsden’s  suggestion is also interesting (again he’ll correct me if I don’ represent him well) Each “link” might be represented as a pair of reciprocal predicates. For example: Let  (P and P’) be a pair of reciprocal predicates.  Then semantically, the triple (S0, P, O0), would have the same meaning the triple (O0, P’, S0).

 

  • Also I’d observe that “links” already have the concept of a reciprocal-names. Let N be the name for the P in triple (S0, P, O0) when viewed from the perceptive of S0. Then N’, the reciprocal-name is the title of P, is the title of P when it is viewed from the perspective of O2. Naturally if we had reciprocal predicates then the name of P’ (above) would be N’.

 

Besides discussing these more in detail, I’d like to make the following suggestion: We should reify the concept of link beyond just a single predicate – indeed above are examples of where we are already doing this. We should formalize what we mean by links, want kind of characteristics they may have: titles, reciprocal-links, reciprocal-labels, etc.

 

However has  @Eran Gery has emphasized all of this is beyond the scope of the first version of Link Profiles.

 

For me the link profile work would look something like this:

 

Version 0: Describe linking as it exists in ELM today keeping modifications to a minimum. Given the importance of GC’s for real life applications – and changing my position a bit here – this should include both opt in and opt out cases (with and out GCS), even though that means waving our hands a bit and just assuming the indexing for back links.  

 

Version 1: We reify links and include the concepts above and more.

 

 

From: Gentry, Edward <e.gentry@...>
Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2022 22:48
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>; Robert Baillargeon <rbaillargeon@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; oslc-op@...; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Subject: Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

Sorry I’ve missed the discussion today. It’s a holiday here. 

 

One thing for me is very clear. If by link we mean a single predicate then we always know where it is stored. Always. It is stored with the subject of the link. Always. 

 

We don’t store statements about resources we don’t control. And I certainly should not trust a statement made by another about a resource that belongs to me. 

 

Now if we understand a link more semantically then Jim’s suggestion that the concept “satisfies” could be expressed with two different predicates “satisfies” and “satisfies by” each potentially stored on the corresponding side is something we might consider. But I’d suggest as a second phase since nothing like this exists to my knowledge 


From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 9:33:00 PM
To: Robert Baillargeon <
rbaillargeon@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; Gentry, Edward <e.gentry@...>; oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Subject: RE: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

I am specifically not proposing to store backlinks. What I’m suggesting is that which link is the forward link depends on the use case the servers are trying to support. So rather I’m proposing using constraints as a means of discovering and perhaps specifying in a profile, what the links mean in a particular situation.

 

Once discovered where the link is stored, there should be standard way of determining the incoming/inverse link.

 

 

From: Robert Baillargeon <rbaillargeon@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 3:12 PM
To: Jim Amsden <
jamsden@...>, Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>, Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>, "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

I'm always for only storing the forward link. It has a clear advantage in the ability to better manage the configurations and the composition of configurations. If I could get rid of backlinks I would. ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

I'm always for only storing the forward link.  It has a clear advantage in the ability to better manage the configurations and the composition of configurations.  If I could get rid of backlinks I would. 

 

When moving entirely to reverse link discovery, I would also note that we will need to have some behaviors in the tools to address when a discovery task fails due to downstream authentication, timeout, or otherwise.  We have seen situations where the inverse link is not visible and user confusion about the cause.

 

That is an interesting thought that we could discover link ownership by inspecting the shape.  Let me consider that path and see if that is complete with the information we would expect.

 

 

 

The other interesting point is to 

Chief Product Officer – Linked Data

418 N. Main Street 2nd Floor/Suite 200, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067, USA
Ph: 716 261 8338 
sodiuswillert.com

 

 

Try out our Jira and Confluence OSLC Tools on the Atlassian Marketplace


From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...> on behalf of David Honey2 via lists.oasis-open-projects.org <david.honey=ibm.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Jim Amsden <
jamsden@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; e.gentry@... <e.gentry@...>
Cc:
oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
Subject: Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

Always trying to create both forward and back links seems like the wrong thing to do, even in opt-out mode. Servers are free to either silently ignore RDF properties it doesn’t support, or to fail the whole PUT if it contains an unsupported property. That could give rise to unpredictable behaviour.

 

An OSLC client may be able to discover which direction(s) are to be used. Consider a user wanting to create a validates requirement link between a test case and a requirement. There are two potential links (as defined by OSLC specs):

  • oslc_qm:validatesRequirement stored on the test case
  • oslc_rm:validatedBy stored on the requirement

 

A caller can GET the test case, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_qm:validatesRequirement. It can then GET the requirement, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_rm:validatedBy.

I wonder whether that’s sufficient to do the right thing for ELM and for other applications.

 

Thinking about the opt-in case….

Say you have requirement R1 version 1 (R1-1), and test case TC1 version 1 (TC1-1).
You update the test case in the context of some ETM stream, creating TC1-2 that has a oslc_qm:validatesRequirement link to the concept R1. In order to create the back-link, you’d need to update R1-1 in the context of a DNG stream, to create R1-2. A caller won’t know which stream to use for that backlink, so the only way I can see this working is if this is done in a GC context. It also has the side-effect of creating a new version of both the source and the target. If someone looked at R1 in a GC context that resolved to R1-1, and resolved TC1 to TC1-2, you end up with an inconsistency. The oslc_rm:validatedBy link didn’t exist on R1-1, but the forward link to that requirement exists on TC1-2. I think these were the reasons why ELM decided for opt-in, there would be no backlinks.

 

David.

 

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>
Sent: 26 May 2022 18:46
To: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>; e.gentry@...
Cc: oslc-op@...
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

This is a good start, but we should understand how it supports the use cases and common practice.

 

On the issues we’ve been discussing on links: the OSLC specifications define vocabularies and shapes that specify links that would be reasonably considered inverses. Requirement validatedBy TestCase and TestCase validatesRquirement Requirement is one such example. However, OSLC does not specify which one is the property, which would be considered the inverse property, which or  “owed by” any particular server that supports RM and/or QM domains. Rather this is a server implementation decision, often driven by use cases/scenarios that support a particular work-flow – i.e., requirements vs. test driven develop in this case.

 

Fundamentally OSLC ResourceShape constraints have no way of indicating what a server expects to store vs. expects another server involved in a link relationship expects/can/has to store. So, implementations do what works for them and what is stored where must be documented outside OSLC discovery.

 

Added to that, OSLC delegated dialogs don’t establish a clear distinction between the requester and provider of the delegated dialog and who’s supposed to “own” the link – that is, which link property the pair of tools considers the actual source and target of the link, and whether the source or target resource will be the subject of the link property triple.

 

Jazz.net tools attempt to make this transparent, so the user doesn’t have to know which server is storing the link, or how the incoming links are stored or calculated. This is purely a usability issue. However, the participating servers do have to know because even through the creation of the link can be created from either direction, the servers must know which one stores it and implement the link creation accordingly. Again, there is no way to discover this.

 

We could expand ResourceShape to define inverse property constraints to provide a discoverable way for clients and servers to interoperate when creating links from either direction. I expect that might be a better approach than defining a number of profile special cases.

 

 

 

From: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:49 AM
To: Eran Gery <
eran.gery@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>, Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>
Cc: "
oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

Hi, I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi,

 

I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran for taking extra time to explain some things to me.

 

/A

Unless otherwise stated above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU

Unless otherwise stated above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU


Re: Link profiles

David Honey2
 

As you suggest Jim, we could add a new property of an oslc:Property to indicate the reverse predicate for a link. This is not without its problems. Say we added a oslc:inversePropertyDefinition property. Consider the following use case (with imprecise Turtle):

 

Resource shape 1:

<prop1>
      a oslc:Property ;
      oslc:properyDefinition <forwardPredicate1> ;
     oslc:inversePropertyDefinition <reversePredicate1> ;
     ...

<prop2>
      a oslc:Property ;
      oslc:properyDefinition <forwardPredicate2> ;
     oslc:inversePropertyDefinition <reversePredicate1> ;

 

Resource shape 2:

<prop3>
      a oslc:Property ;
      oslc:properyDefinition <reversePredicate1> ;
     oslc:inversePropertyDefinition <forwardPredicate1> ;
     ...

 

Resource shape 3:

<prop4>
      a oslc:Property ;
      oslc:properyDefinition <reversePredicate1> ;
     oslc:inversePropertyDefinition <forwardPredicate2> ;
     ...

 


Now when you ask the question what is the inverse predicate for
<reversePredicate1> across resource shapes, you get two solutions <forwardPredicate1> and <forwardPredicate2>. For reporting solutions that query for type system models in LQE (such as Report Builder) this doesn’t work.

This is a common pattern. You might use some predicate P1 for all link to some resource of type T1 regardless of the type of the subject resource. So there might be multiple resource types T2, T3, T4 that all use that predicate P1 to resources of type T1. However, the reverse predicate from type T2 to T1 is almost always different from type T3 to T1, and from type T4 to T1.

If you look at any single resource shape, it’s unambiguous.

 

I think we need to consider such a proposal carefully.

 

David.

 

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>
Sent: 26 May 2022 20:33
To: Robert Baillargeon <rbaillargeon@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; e.gentry@...; oslc-op@...; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

I am specifically not proposing to store backlinks. What I’m suggesting is that which link is the forward link depends on the use case the servers are trying to support. So rather I’m proposing using constraints as a means of discovering and perhaps specifying in a profile, what the links mean in a particular situation.

 

Once discovered where the link is stored, there should be standard way of determining the incoming/inverse link.

 

 

From: Robert Baillargeon <rbaillargeon@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 3:12 PM
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>, Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>, "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

I'm always for only storing the forward link. It has a clear advantage in the ability to better manage the configurations and the composition of configurations. If I could get rid of backlinks I would. ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

I'm always for only storing the forward link.  It has a clear advantage in the ability to better manage the configurations and the composition of configurations.  If I could get rid of backlinks I would. 

 

When moving entirely to reverse link discovery, I would also note that we will need to have some behaviors in the tools to address when a discovery task fails due to downstream authentication, timeout, or otherwise.  We have seen situations where the inverse link is not visible and user confusion about the cause.

 

That is an interesting thought that we could discover link ownership by inspecting the shape.  Let me consider that path and see if that is complete with the information we would expect.

 

 

 

The other interesting point is to 

Chief Product Officer – Linked Data

418 N. Main Street 2nd Floor/Suite 200, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067, USA
Ph: 716 261 8338 
sodiuswillert.com

 

 

Try out our Jira and Confluence OSLC Tools on the Atlassian Marketplace


From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...> on behalf of David Honey2 via lists.oasis-open-projects.org <david.honey=ibm.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; e.gentry@... <e.gentry@...>
Cc: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
Subject: Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

Always trying to create both forward and back links seems like the wrong thing to do, even in opt-out mode. Servers are free to either silently ignore RDF properties it doesn’t support, or to fail the whole PUT if it contains an unsupported property. That could give rise to unpredictable behaviour.

 

An OSLC client may be able to discover which direction(s) are to be used. Consider a user wanting to create a validates requirement link between a test case and a requirement. There are two potential links (as defined by OSLC specs):

  • oslc_qm:validatesRequirement stored on the test case
  • oslc_rm:validatedBy stored on the requirement

 

A caller can GET the test case, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_qm:validatesRequirement. It can then GET the requirement, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_rm:validatedBy.

I wonder whether that’s sufficient to do the right thing for ELM and for other applications.

 

Thinking about the opt-in case….

Say you have requirement R1 version 1 (R1-1), and test case TC1 version 1 (TC1-1).
You update the test case in the context of some ETM stream, creating TC1-2 that has a oslc_qm:validatesRequirement link to the concept R1. In order to create the back-link, you’d need to update R1-1 in the context of a DNG stream, to create R1-2. A caller won’t know which stream to use for that backlink, so the only way I can see this working is if this is done in a GC context. It also has the side-effect of creating a new version of both the source and the target. If someone looked at R1 in a GC context that resolved to R1-1, and resolved TC1 to TC1-2, you end up with an inconsistency. The oslc_rm:validatedBy link didn’t exist on R1-1, but the forward link to that requirement exists on TC1-2. I think these were the reasons why ELM decided for opt-in, there would be no backlinks.

 

David.

 

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>
Sent: 26 May 2022 18:46
To: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>; e.gentry@...
Cc: oslc-op@...
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

This is a good start, but we should understand how it supports the use cases and common practice.

 

On the issues we’ve been discussing on links: the OSLC specifications define vocabularies and shapes that specify links that would be reasonably considered inverses. Requirement validatedBy TestCase and TestCase validatesRquirement Requirement is one such example. However, OSLC does not specify which one is the property, which would be considered the inverse property, which or  “owed by” any particular server that supports RM and/or QM domains. Rather this is a server implementation decision, often driven by use cases/scenarios that support a particular work-flow – i.e., requirements vs. test driven develop in this case.

 

Fundamentally OSLC ResourceShape constraints have no way of indicating what a server expects to store vs. expects another server involved in a link relationship expects/can/has to store. So, implementations do what works for them and what is stored where must be documented outside OSLC discovery.

 

Added to that, OSLC delegated dialogs don’t establish a clear distinction between the requester and provider of the delegated dialog and who’s supposed to “own” the link – that is, which link property the pair of tools considers the actual source and target of the link, and whether the source or target resource will be the subject of the link property triple.

 

Jazz.net tools attempt to make this transparent, so the user doesn’t have to know which server is storing the link, or how the incoming links are stored or calculated. This is purely a usability issue. However, the participating servers do have to know because even through the creation of the link can be created from either direction, the servers must know which one stores it and implement the link creation accordingly. Again, there is no way to discover this.

 

We could expand ResourceShape to define inverse property constraints to provide a discoverable way for clients and servers to interoperate when creating links from either direction. I expect that might be a better approach than defining a number of profile special cases.

 

 

 

From: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:49 AM
To: Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>, Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>
Cc: "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

Hi, I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi,

 

I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran for taking extra time to explain some things to me.

 

/A

Unless otherwise stated above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU

Unless otherwise stated above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU


Re: Link profiles

"Eran Gery"
 

Ed,

 

Thanks for coming back to version 0…. Indeed this is what we should focus on and we rather call it version 1.

As I mentioned in my other note, IMO for Opt-out we should not recommend link index as this is too far from how Jazz behaves. I think we should recommend OSLC query. That also reduces the requirement to support TRS in that case. And again, there is the CCM anomaly that still relies on backlinking.

 

Regards,

eran

 

From: Gentry, Edward <e.gentry@...>
Sent: Friday, 27 May 2022 10:00
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>; Robert Baillargeon <rbaillargeon@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; oslc-op@...; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

A few ideas and observations and a concrete proposal: A helpful idea was proposed by our French Sodius Colleague whose name escapes me. He suggested in a conversation after our last call – and he’ll correct me if I don’t represent him well

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

A few ideas and observations and a concrete proposal:

 

  • A helpful idea was proposed by our French Sodius Colleague whose name escapes me.  He suggested in a conversation after our last call – and he’ll correct me if I don’t represent him well - that resource shapes should be extended so that tools could indicate which links they index.

 

  • @Jim Amsden’s  suggestion is also interesting (again he’ll correct me if I don’ represent him well) Each “link” might be represented as a pair of reciprocal predicates. For example: Let  (P and P’) be a pair of reciprocal predicates.  Then semantically, the triple (S0, P, O0), would have the same meaning the triple (O0, P’, S0).

 

  • Also I’d observe that “links” already have the concept of a reciprocal-names. Let N be the name for the P in triple (S0, P, O0) when viewed from the perceptive of S0. Then N’, the reciprocal-name is the title of P, is the title of P when it is viewed from the perspective of O2. Naturally if we had reciprocal predicates then the name of P’ (above) would be N’.

 

Besides discussing these more in detail, I’d like to make the following suggestion: We should reify the concept of link beyond just a single predicate – indeed above are examples of where we are already doing this. We should formalize what we mean by links, want kind of characteristics they may have: titles, reciprocal-links, reciprocal-labels, etc.

 

However has  @Eran Gery has emphasized all of this is beyond the scope of the first version of Link Profiles.

 

For me the link profile work would look something like this:

 

Version 0: Describe linking as it exists in ELM today keeping modifications to a minimum. Given the importance of GC’s for real life applications – and changing my position a bit here – this should include both opt in and opt out cases (with and out GCS), even though that means waving our hands a bit and just assuming the indexing for back links.  

 

Version 1: We reify links and include the concepts above and more.

 

 

From: Gentry, Edward <e.gentry@...>
Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2022 22:48
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>; Robert Baillargeon <rbaillargeon@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; oslc-op@...; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Subject: Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

Sorry I’ve missed the discussion today. It’s a holiday here. 

 

One thing for me is very clear. If by link we mean a single predicate then we always know where it is stored. Always. It is stored with the subject of the link. Always. 

 

We don’t store statements about resources we don’t control. And I certainly should not trust a statement made by another about a resource that belongs to me. 

 

Now if we understand a link more semantically then Jim’s suggestion that the concept “satisfies” could be expressed with two different predicates “satisfies” and “satisfies by” each potentially stored on the corresponding side is something we might consider. But I’d suggest as a second phase since nothing like this exists to my knowledge 


From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 9:33:00 PM
To: Robert Baillargeon <
rbaillargeon@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; Gentry, Edward <e.gentry@...>; oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Subject: RE: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

I am specifically not proposing to store backlinks. What I’m suggesting is that which link is the forward link depends on the use case the servers are trying to support. So rather I’m proposing using constraints as a means of discovering and perhaps specifying in a profile, what the links mean in a particular situation.

 

Once discovered where the link is stored, there should be standard way of determining the incoming/inverse link.

 

 

From: Robert Baillargeon <rbaillargeon@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 3:12 PM
To: Jim Amsden <
jamsden@...>, Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>, Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>, "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

I'm always for only storing the forward link. It has a clear advantage in the ability to better manage the configurations and the composition of configurations. If I could get rid of backlinks I would. ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

I'm always for only storing the forward link.  It has a clear advantage in the ability to better manage the configurations and the composition of configurations.  If I could get rid of backlinks I would. 

 

When moving entirely to reverse link discovery, I would also note that we will need to have some behaviors in the tools to address when a discovery task fails due to downstream authentication, timeout, or otherwise.  We have seen situations where the inverse link is not visible and user confusion about the cause.

 

That is an interesting thought that we could discover link ownership by inspecting the shape.  Let me consider that path and see if that is complete with the information we would expect.

 

 

 

The other interesting point is to 

Chief Product Officer – Linked Data

418 N. Main Street 2nd Floor/Suite 200, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067, USA
Ph: 716 261 8338 
sodiuswillert.com

 

 

Try out our Jira and Confluence OSLC Tools on the Atlassian Marketplace


From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...> on behalf of David Honey2 via lists.oasis-open-projects.org <david.honey=ibm.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Jim Amsden <
jamsden@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; e.gentry@... <e.gentry@...>
Cc:
oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
Subject: Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

Always trying to create both forward and back links seems like the wrong thing to do, even in opt-out mode. Servers are free to either silently ignore RDF properties it doesn’t support, or to fail the whole PUT if it contains an unsupported property. That could give rise to unpredictable behaviour.

 

An OSLC client may be able to discover which direction(s) are to be used. Consider a user wanting to create a validates requirement link between a test case and a requirement. There are two potential links (as defined by OSLC specs):

  • oslc_qm:validatesRequirement stored on the test case
  • oslc_rm:validatedBy stored on the requirement

 

A caller can GET the test case, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_qm:validatesRequirement. It can then GET the requirement, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_rm:validatedBy.

I wonder whether that’s sufficient to do the right thing for ELM and for other applications.

 

Thinking about the opt-in case….

Say you have requirement R1 version 1 (R1-1), and test case TC1 version 1 (TC1-1).
You update the test case in the context of some ETM stream, creating TC1-2 that has a
oslc_qm:validatesRequirement link to the concept R1. In order to create the back-link, you’d need to update R1-1 in the context of a DNG stream, to create R1-2. A caller won’t know which stream to use for that backlink, so the only way I can see this working is if this is done in a GC context. It also has the side-effect of creating a new version of both the source and the target. If someone looked at R1 in a GC context that resolved to R1-1, and resolved TC1 to TC1-2, you end up with an inconsistency. The oslc_rm:validatedBy link didn’t exist on R1-1, but the forward link to that requirement exists on TC1-2. I think these were the reasons why ELM decided for opt-in, there would be no backlinks.

 

David.

 

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>
Sent: 26 May 2022 18:46
To: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>; e.gentry@...
Cc: oslc-op@...
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

This is a good start, but we should understand how it supports the use cases and common practice.

 

On the issues we’ve been discussing on links: the OSLC specifications define vocabularies and shapes that specify links that would be reasonably considered inverses. Requirement validatedBy TestCase and TestCase validatesRquirement Requirement is one such example. However, OSLC does not specify which one is the property, which would be considered the inverse property, which or  “owed by” any particular server that supports RM and/or QM domains. Rather this is a server implementation decision, often driven by use cases/scenarios that support a particular work-flow – i.e., requirements vs. test driven develop in this case.

 

Fundamentally OSLC ResourceShape constraints have no way of indicating what a server expects to store vs. expects another server involved in a link relationship expects/can/has to store. So, implementations do what works for them and what is stored where must be documented outside OSLC discovery.

 

Added to that, OSLC delegated dialogs don’t establish a clear distinction between the requester and provider of the delegated dialog and who’s supposed to “own” the link – that is, which link property the pair of tools considers the actual source and target of the link, and whether the source or target resource will be the subject of the link property triple.

 

Jazz.net tools attempt to make this transparent, so the user doesn’t have to know which server is storing the link, or how the incoming links are stored or calculated. This is purely a usability issue. However, the participating servers do have to know because even through the creation of the link can be created from either direction, the servers must know which one stores it and implement the link creation accordingly. Again, there is no way to discover this.

 

We could expand ResourceShape to define inverse property constraints to provide a discoverable way for clients and servers to interoperate when creating links from either direction. I expect that might be a better approach than defining a number of profile special cases.

 

 

 

From: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:49 AM
To: Eran Gery <
eran.gery@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>, Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>
Cc: "
oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

Hi, I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi,

 

I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran for taking extra time to explain some things to me.

 

/A

Unless otherwise stated above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU


Re: Link profiles

"Eran Gery"
 

Hi David, all,

 

Again, pulling back towards the pragmatic principle “let’s define a profile that at least guarantees ELM (jazz) cross linking”.

Let’s push to the background for now discussions around “good architectural specification”. Profiles here are all about (ugly) pragmatics.

 

Note: there are some ELM anomalies we may not include in a profile, only document. Obviously we need ELM to fix that. Some examples:

  • ELM currently does not support AM/AM linking (RMM). Obviously we cannot enforce this in a profile. We are pushing hard to fix it this year.
  • While in opt-in mode incoming link discovery is done via LDX, RM expects AM to support OSLC query for that. This means that LDX support is not enough for an AM provider, and it needs to support both LDX feed and OSLC query. Again we can document it but recommend LDX usage across all opt-in incoming link discoveries.
  • In OptOut mode (no config) ELM assumes backlinking. So for example if a Jira connector creates a link to a requirement, it also needs to create a backlink on the requirement. Ouch.

 

So for that purpose a question about “opt out” mode: how does ELM behave here, between using a single link with incoming implemented with OSLC query, vs. using backlinks. As far as I recall, all CCM links are using backlinking, and other (RM:QM, RM:AM, AM:QM) use a query. Is that correct?

 

As for shapes based discovery: I think we also need to specify the storage policy, as creating apps based on discovery requires a higher level of sophistication and preparing for variability. Between two providers, if both have shapes that claim ownership, one need to concede. So to simplify we need to provide ownership map. Also another related question: do the shapes change between opt-out and opt-in mode? For example. RM in opt-out would keep a backlink to CCM. In opt-in not. Does it maintain two shapes?

 

Also for Anrew’s request attached is a spreadsheet  I created at the time for opt-in mode. We also need to create on for opt-out.  @David Honey2

Can you please confirm its accuracy?

Hope this makes sense…

Regards,

Eran

 

 

From: David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Sent: Thursday, 26 May 2022 21:59
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; e.gentry@...
Cc: oslc-op@...
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

Always trying to create both forward and back links seems like the wrong thing to do, even in opt-out mode. Servers are free to either silently ignore RDF properties it doesn’t support, or to fail the whole PUT if it contains an unsupported property. That could give rise to unpredictable behaviour.

 

An OSLC client may be able to discover which direction(s) are to be used. Consider a user wanting to create a validates requirement link between a test case and a requirement. There are two potential links (as defined by OSLC specs):

  • oslc_qm:validatesRequirement stored on the test case
  • oslc_rm:validatedBy stored on the requirement

 

A caller can GET the test case, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_qm:validatesRequirement. It can then GET the requirement, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_rm:validatedBy.

I wonder whether that’s sufficient to do the right thing for ELM and for other applications.

 

Thinking about the opt-in case….

Say you have requirement R1 version 1 (R1-1), and test case TC1 version 1 (TC1-1).
You update the test case in the context of some ETM stream, creating TC1-2 that has a
oslc_qm:validatesRequirement link to the concept R1. In order to create the back-link, you’d need to update R1-1 in the context of a DNG stream, to create R1-2. A caller won’t know which stream to use for that backlink, so the only way I can see this working is if this is done in a GC context. It also has the side-effect of creating a new version of both the source and the target. If someone looked at R1 in a GC context that resolved to R1-1, and resolved TC1 to TC1-2, you end up with an inconsistency. The oslc_rm:validatedBy link didn’t exist on R1-1, but the forward link to that requirement exists on TC1-2. I think these were the reasons why ELM decided for opt-in, there would be no backlinks.

 

David.

 

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>
Sent: 26 May 2022 18:46
To: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>; e.gentry@...
Cc: oslc-op@...
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

This is a good start, but we should understand how it supports the use cases and common practice.

 

On the issues we’ve been discussing on links: the OSLC specifications define vocabularies and shapes that specify links that would be reasonably considered inverses. Requirement validatedBy TestCase and TestCase validatesRquirement Requirement is one such example. However, OSLC does not specify which one is the property, which would be considered the inverse property, which or  “owed by” any particular server that supports RM and/or QM domains. Rather this is a server implementation decision, often driven by use cases/scenarios that support a particular work-flow – i.e., requirements vs. test driven develop in this case.

 

Fundamentally OSLC ResourceShape constraints have no way of indicating what a server expects to store vs. expects another server involved in a link relationship expects/can/has to store. So, implementations do what works for them and what is stored where must be documented outside OSLC discovery.

 

Added to that, OSLC delegated dialogs don’t establish a clear distinction between the requester and provider of the delegated dialog and who’s supposed to “own” the link – that is, which link property the pair of tools considers the actual source and target of the link, and whether the source or target resource will be the subject of the link property triple.

 

Jazz.net tools attempt to make this transparent, so the user doesn’t have to know which server is storing the link, or how the incoming links are stored or calculated. This is purely a usability issue. However, the participating servers do have to know because even through the creation of the link can be created from either direction, the servers must know which one stores it and implement the link creation accordingly. Again, there is no way to discover this.

 

We could expand ResourceShape to define inverse property constraints to provide a discoverable way for clients and servers to interoperate when creating links from either direction. I expect that might be a better approach than defining a number of profile special cases.

 

 

 

From: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:49 AM
To: Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>, Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>
Cc: "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

Hi, I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi,

 

I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran for taking extra time to explain some things to me.

 

/A


Re: Link profiles

Gentry, Edward <e.gentry@...>
 

Sorry I’ve missed the discussion today. It’s a holiday here. 

One thing for me is very clear. If by link we mean a single predicate then we always know where it is stored. Always. It is stored with the subject of the link. Always. 

We don’t store statements about resources we don’t control. And I certainly should not trust a statement made by another about a resource that belongs to me. 

Now if we understand a link more semantically then Jim’s suggestion that the concept “satisfies” could be expressed with two different predicates “satisfies” and “satisfies by” each potentially stored on the corresponding side is something we might consider. But I’d suggest as a second phase since nothing like this exists to my knowledge 

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 9:33:00 PM
To: Robert Baillargeon <rbaillargeon@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; Gentry, Edward <e.gentry@...>; oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Subject: RE: [oslc-op] Link profiles
 

I am specifically not proposing to store backlinks. What I’m suggesting is that which link is the forward link depends on the use case the servers are trying to support. So rather I’m proposing using constraints as a means of discovering and perhaps specifying in a profile, what the links mean in a particular situation.

 

Once discovered where the link is stored, there should be standard way of determining the incoming/inverse link.

 

 

From: Robert Baillargeon <rbaillargeon@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 3:12 PM
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>, Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>, "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

I'm always for only storing the forward link. It has a clear advantage in the ability to better manage the configurations and the composition of configurations. If I could get rid of backlinks I would. ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

I'm always for only storing the forward link.  It has a clear advantage in the ability to better manage the configurations and the composition of configurations.  If I could get rid of backlinks I would. 

 

When moving entirely to reverse link discovery, I would also note that we will need to have some behaviors in the tools to address when a discovery task fails due to downstream authentication, timeout, or otherwise.  We have seen situations where the inverse link is not visible and user confusion about the cause.

 

That is an interesting thought that we could discover link ownership by inspecting the shape.  Let me consider that path and see if that is complete with the information we would expect.

 

 

 

The other interesting point is to 

Chief Product Officer – Linked Data

418 N. Main Street 2nd Floor/Suite 200, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067, USA
Ph: 716 261 8338 
sodiuswillert.com

 

 

Try out our Jira and Confluence OSLC Tools on the Atlassian Marketplace


From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...> on behalf of David Honey2 via lists.oasis-open-projects.org <david.honey=ibm.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; e.gentry@... <e.gentry@...>
Cc: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
Subject: Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

Always trying to create both forward and back links seems like the wrong thing to do, even in opt-out mode. Servers are free to either silently ignore RDF properties it doesn’t support, or to fail the whole PUT if it contains an unsupported property. That could give rise to unpredictable behaviour.

 

An OSLC client may be able to discover which direction(s) are to be used. Consider a user wanting to create a validates requirement link between a test case and a requirement. There are two potential links (as defined by OSLC specs):

  • oslc_qm:validatesRequirement stored on the test case
  • oslc_rm:validatedBy stored on the requirement

 

A caller can GET the test case, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_qm:validatesRequirement. It can then GET the requirement, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_rm:validatedBy.

I wonder whether that’s sufficient to do the right thing for ELM and for other applications.

 

Thinking about the opt-in case….

Say you have requirement R1 version 1 (R1-1), and test case TC1 version 1 (TC1-1).
You update the test case in the context of some ETM stream, creating TC1-2 that has a
oslc_qm:validatesRequirement link to the concept R1. In order to create the back-link, you’d need to update R1-1 in the context of a DNG stream, to create R1-2. A caller won’t know which stream to use for that backlink, so the only way I can see this working is if this is done in a GC context. It also has the side-effect of creating a new version of both the source and the target. If someone looked at R1 in a GC context that resolved to R1-1, and resolved TC1 to TC1-2, you end up with an inconsistency. The oslc_rm:validatedBy link didn’t exist on R1-1, but the forward link to that requirement exists on TC1-2. I think these were the reasons why ELM decided for opt-in, there would be no backlinks.

 

David.

 

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>
Sent: 26 May 2022 18:46
To: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>; e.gentry@...
Cc: oslc-op@...
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

This is a good start, but we should understand how it supports the use cases and common practice.

 

On the issues we’ve been discussing on links: the OSLC specifications define vocabularies and shapes that specify links that would be reasonably considered inverses. Requirement validatedBy TestCase and TestCase validatesRquirement Requirement is one such example. However, OSLC does not specify which one is the property, which would be considered the inverse property, which or  “owed by” any particular server that supports RM and/or QM domains. Rather this is a server implementation decision, often driven by use cases/scenarios that support a particular work-flow – i.e., requirements vs. test driven develop in this case.

 

Fundamentally OSLC ResourceShape constraints have no way of indicating what a server expects to store vs. expects another server involved in a link relationship expects/can/has to store. So, implementations do what works for them and what is stored where must be documented outside OSLC discovery.

 

Added to that, OSLC delegated dialogs don’t establish a clear distinction between the requester and provider of the delegated dialog and who’s supposed to “own” the link – that is, which link property the pair of tools considers the actual source and target of the link, and whether the source or target resource will be the subject of the link property triple.

 

Jazz.net tools attempt to make this transparent, so the user doesn’t have to know which server is storing the link, or how the incoming links are stored or calculated. This is purely a usability issue. However, the participating servers do have to know because even through the creation of the link can be created from either direction, the servers must know which one stores it and implement the link creation accordingly. Again, there is no way to discover this.

 

We could expand ResourceShape to define inverse property constraints to provide a discoverable way for clients and servers to interoperate when creating links from either direction. I expect that might be a better approach than defining a number of profile special cases.

 

 

 

From: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:49 AM
To: Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>, Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>
Cc: "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

Hi, I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi,

 

I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran for taking extra time to explain some things to me.

 

/A

Unless otherwise stated above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU


Five Project Notes published by OSLC Open Project

Paul Knight
 


OASIS Members and other interested parties,

OASIS is pleased to announce the publication of five new Project Notes from the members of the OASIS Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC) OP [1].

- OSLC Core Version 3.0: Link Guidance
In this informative note we offer advice to OSLC Technical Committees on modeling links and relationships between OSLC resources.

- Configuration Management 1.0 Primer
This primer serves as a guide to the concepts in "OSLC Configuration Management Version 1.0", and through the use of simple examples, explains how versioning and configurations are represented, how and when local configurations and global configurations are used, and lists the elements that an implementation should consider.

- Summary of changes in OSLC Core 3.0
This note will serve as a guide for existing OSLC 2.0 users to learn what’s new in "OSLC Core Version 3.0" and navigate around the changes in the specifications.

- OSLC Tracked Resource Set Guidance
This document contains preliminary material for a tutorial for "OSLC Tracked Resource Set Version 3.0."

- Tracked Resource Set 1.0 Primer
This primer serves as a guide to the concepts in "OSLC Tracked Resource Set Version 3.0," and through the use of simple examples, explains how a data provider might expose resources in a TRS and how a TRS client might consume a data provider’s TRS.

The Project Notes are available here:

Configuration Management Primer Version 1.0
Project Note 01
16 December 2021

https://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/config-primer/v1.0/pn01/config-primer.html
https://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/config-primer/v1.0/pn01/config-primer.pdf
***************************************

OSLC Core v3.0 Changes Version 1.0
Project Note 01
16 December 2021

https://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/core-3.0-changes/v1.0/pn01/core-3.0-changes.html
https://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/core-3.0-changes/v1.0/pn01/core-3.0-changes.pdf
***************************************

OSLC Core Version 3.0: Link Guidance Version 1.0
Project Note 01
16 December 2021

https://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/link-guidance/v1.0/pn01/link-guidance.html
https://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/link-guidance/v1.0/pn01/link-guidance.pdf
***************************************

OSLC Tracked Resource Set Guidance Version 1.0
Project Note 01
16 December 2021

https://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/trs-guidance/v1.0/pn01/trs-guidance.html
https://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/trs-guidance/v1.0/pn01/trs-guidance.pdf
***************************************

Tracked Resource Set Primer Version 1.0
Project Note 01
16 December 2021

https://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/trs-primer/v1.0/pn01/trs-primer.html
https://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/trs-primer/v1.0/pn01/trs-primer.pdf
***************************************

The Project Governing Board of the OSLC OP approved these Project Notes on 16 December 2021 as documented in the OP ballot [2].

Our congratulations to all the members of the OP.

========== Additional references:

[1] OASIS Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC) OP
https://open-services.net/about/

[2] Approval
https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op-pgb/message/210
--
OASIS...Setting the standard for open collaboration


Re: Link profiles

Jim Amsden
 

I am specifically not proposing to store backlinks. What I’m suggesting is that which link is the forward link depends on the use case the servers are trying to support. So rather I’m proposing using constraints as a means of discovering and perhaps specifying in a profile, what the links mean in a particular situation.

 

Once discovered where the link is stored, there should be standard way of determining the incoming/inverse link.

 

 

From: Robert Baillargeon <rbaillargeon@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 3:12 PM
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>, Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>, "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

I'm always for only storing the forward link. It has a clear advantage in the ability to better manage the configurations and the composition of configurations. If I could get rid of backlinks I would. ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

I'm always for only storing the forward link.  It has a clear advantage in the ability to better manage the configurations and the composition of configurations.  If I could get rid of backlinks I would. 

 

When moving entirely to reverse link discovery, I would also note that we will need to have some behaviors in the tools to address when a discovery task fails due to downstream authentication, timeout, or otherwise.  We have seen situations where the inverse link is not visible and user confusion about the cause.

 

That is an interesting thought that we could discover link ownership by inspecting the shape.  Let me consider that path and see if that is complete with the information we would expect.

 

 

 

The other interesting point is to 

Chief Product Officer – Linked Data

418 N. Main Street 2nd Floor/Suite 200, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067, USA
Ph: 716 261 8338 
sodiuswillert.com

 

 

Try out our Jira and Confluence OSLC Tools on the Atlassian Marketplace


From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...> on behalf of David Honey2 via lists.oasis-open-projects.org <david.honey=ibm.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; e.gentry@... <e.gentry@...>
Cc: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
Subject: Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles

 

Always trying to create both forward and back links seems like the wrong thing to do, even in opt-out mode. Servers are free to either silently ignore RDF properties it doesn’t support, or to fail the whole PUT if it contains an unsupported property. That could give rise to unpredictable behaviour.

 

An OSLC client may be able to discover which direction(s) are to be used. Consider a user wanting to create a validates requirement link between a test case and a requirement. There are two potential links (as defined by OSLC specs):

  • oslc_qm:validatesRequirement stored on the test case
  • oslc_rm:validatedBy stored on the requirement

 

A caller can GET the test case, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_qm:validatesRequirement. It can then GET the requirement, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_rm:validatedBy.

I wonder whether that’s sufficient to do the right thing for ELM and for other applications.

 

Thinking about the opt-in case….

Say you have requirement R1 version 1 (R1-1), and test case TC1 version 1 (TC1-1).
You update the test case in the context of some ETM stream, creating TC1-2 that has a
oslc_qm:validatesRequirement link to the concept R1. In order to create the back-link, you’d need to update R1-1 in the context of a DNG stream, to create R1-2. A caller won’t know which stream to use for that backlink, so the only way I can see this working is if this is done in a GC context. It also has the side-effect of creating a new version of both the source and the target. If someone looked at R1 in a GC context that resolved to R1-1, and resolved TC1 to TC1-2, you end up with an inconsistency. The oslc_rm:validatedBy link didn’t exist on R1-1, but the forward link to that requirement exists on TC1-2. I think these were the reasons why ELM decided for opt-in, there would be no backlinks.

 

David.

 

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>
Sent: 26 May 2022 18:46
To: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>; e.gentry@...
Cc: oslc-op@...
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

This is a good start, but we should understand how it supports the use cases and common practice.

 

On the issues we’ve been discussing on links: the OSLC specifications define vocabularies and shapes that specify links that would be reasonably considered inverses. Requirement validatedBy TestCase and TestCase validatesRquirement Requirement is one such example. However, OSLC does not specify which one is the property, which would be considered the inverse property, which or  “owed by” any particular server that supports RM and/or QM domains. Rather this is a server implementation decision, often driven by use cases/scenarios that support a particular work-flow – i.e., requirements vs. test driven develop in this case.

 

Fundamentally OSLC ResourceShape constraints have no way of indicating what a server expects to store vs. expects another server involved in a link relationship expects/can/has to store. So, implementations do what works for them and what is stored where must be documented outside OSLC discovery.

 

Added to that, OSLC delegated dialogs don’t establish a clear distinction between the requester and provider of the delegated dialog and who’s supposed to “own” the link – that is, which link property the pair of tools considers the actual source and target of the link, and whether the source or target resource will be the subject of the link property triple.

 

Jazz.net tools attempt to make this transparent, so the user doesn’t have to know which server is storing the link, or how the incoming links are stored or calculated. This is purely a usability issue. However, the participating servers do have to know because even through the creation of the link can be created from either direction, the servers must know which one stores it and implement the link creation accordingly. Again, there is no way to discover this.

 

We could expand ResourceShape to define inverse property constraints to provide a discoverable way for clients and servers to interoperate when creating links from either direction. I expect that might be a better approach than defining a number of profile special cases.

 

 

 

From: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:49 AM
To: Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>, Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>
Cc: "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

Hi, I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi,

 

I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran for taking extra time to explain some things to me.

 

/A

Unless otherwise stated above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU


Re: Link profiles

Robert Baillargeon
 

I'm always for only storing the forward link.  It has a clear advantage in the ability to better manage the configurations and the composition of configurations.  If I could get rid of backlinks I would. 

When moving entirely to reverse link discovery, I would also note that we will need to have some behaviors in the tools to address when a discovery task fails due to downstream authentication, timeout, or otherwise.  We have seen situations where the inverse link is not visible and user confusion about the cause.

That is an interesting thought that we could discover link ownership by inspecting the shape.  Let me consider that path and see if that is complete with the information we would expect.



The other interesting point is to 

Chief Product Officer – Linked Data

418 N. Main Street 2nd Floor/Suite 200, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067, USA
Ph: 716 261 8338 
sodiuswillert.com

 


 

Try out our Jira and Confluence OSLC Tools on the Atlassian Marketplace


From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...> on behalf of David Honey2 via lists.oasis-open-projects.org <david.honey=ibm.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>; Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; e.gentry@... <e.gentry@...>
Cc: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
Subject: Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles
 

Always trying to create both forward and back links seems like the wrong thing to do, even in opt-out mode. Servers are free to either silently ignore RDF properties it doesn’t support, or to fail the whole PUT if it contains an unsupported property. That could give rise to unpredictable behaviour.

 

An OSLC client may be able to discover which direction(s) are to be used. Consider a user wanting to create a validates requirement link between a test case and a requirement. There are two potential links (as defined by OSLC specs):

  • oslc_qm:validatesRequirement stored on the test case
  • oslc_rm:validatedBy stored on the requirement

 

A caller can GET the test case, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_qm:validatesRequirement. It can then GET the requirement, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_rm:validatedBy.

I wonder whether that’s sufficient to do the right thing for ELM and for other applications.

 

Thinking about the opt-in case….

Say you have requirement R1 version 1 (R1-1), and test case TC1 version 1 (TC1-1).
You update the test case in the context of some ETM stream, creating TC1-2 that has a
oslc_qm:validatesRequirement link to the concept R1. In order to create the back-link, you’d need to update R1-1 in the context of a DNG stream, to create R1-2. A caller won’t know which stream to use for that backlink, so the only way I can see this working is if this is done in a GC context. It also has the side-effect of creating a new version of both the source and the target. If someone looked at R1 in a GC context that resolved to R1-1, and resolved TC1 to TC1-2, you end up with an inconsistency. The oslc_rm:validatedBy link didn’t exist on R1-1, but the forward link to that requirement exists on TC1-2. I think these were the reasons why ELM decided for opt-in, there would be no backlinks.

 

David.

 

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>
Sent: 26 May 2022 18:46
To: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>; e.gentry@...
Cc: oslc-op@...
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

This is a good start, but we should understand how it supports the use cases and common practice.

 

On the issues we’ve been discussing on links: the OSLC specifications define vocabularies and shapes that specify links that would be reasonably considered inverses. Requirement validatedBy TestCase and TestCase validatesRquirement Requirement is one such example. However, OSLC does not specify which one is the property, which would be considered the inverse property, which or  “owed by” any particular server that supports RM and/or QM domains. Rather this is a server implementation decision, often driven by use cases/scenarios that support a particular work-flow – i.e., requirements vs. test driven develop in this case.

 

Fundamentally OSLC ResourceShape constraints have no way of indicating what a server expects to store vs. expects another server involved in a link relationship expects/can/has to store. So, implementations do what works for them and what is stored where must be documented outside OSLC discovery.

 

Added to that, OSLC delegated dialogs don’t establish a clear distinction between the requester and provider of the delegated dialog and who’s supposed to “own” the link – that is, which link property the pair of tools considers the actual source and target of the link, and whether the source or target resource will be the subject of the link property triple.

 

Jazz.net tools attempt to make this transparent, so the user doesn’t have to know which server is storing the link, or how the incoming links are stored or calculated. This is purely a usability issue. However, the participating servers do have to know because even through the creation of the link can be created from either direction, the servers must know which one stores it and implement the link creation accordingly. Again, there is no way to discover this.

 

We could expand ResourceShape to define inverse property constraints to provide a discoverable way for clients and servers to interoperate when creating links from either direction. I expect that might be a better approach than defining a number of profile special cases.

 

 

 

From: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:49 AM
To: Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>, Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>
Cc: "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

Hi, I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi,

 

I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran for taking extra time to explain some things to me.

 

/A

Unless otherwise stated above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU


Re: Link profiles

David Honey2
 

Always trying to create both forward and back links seems like the wrong thing to do, even in opt-out mode. Servers are free to either silently ignore RDF properties it doesn’t support, or to fail the whole PUT if it contains an unsupported property. That could give rise to unpredictable behaviour.

 

An OSLC client may be able to discover which direction(s) are to be used. Consider a user wanting to create a validates requirement link between a test case and a requirement. There are two potential links (as defined by OSLC specs):

  • oslc_qm:validatesRequirement stored on the test case
  • oslc_rm:validatedBy stored on the requirement

 

A caller can GET the test case, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_qm:validatesRequirement. It can then GET the requirement, look for its oslc:instanceShape, get that shape, and then look for the presence or absence of an OSLC property for oslc_rm:validatedBy.

I wonder whether that’s sufficient to do the right thing for ELM and for other applications.

 

Thinking about the opt-in case….

Say you have requirement R1 version 1 (R1-1), and test case TC1 version 1 (TC1-1).
You update the test case in the context of some ETM stream, creating TC1-2 that has a
oslc_qm:validatesRequirement link to the concept R1. In order to create the back-link, you’d need to update R1-1 in the context of a DNG stream, to create R1-2. A caller won’t know which stream to use for that backlink, so the only way I can see this working is if this is done in a GC context. It also has the side-effect of creating a new version of both the source and the target. If someone looked at R1 in a GC context that resolved to R1-1, and resolved TC1 to TC1-2, you end up with an inconsistency. The oslc_rm:validatedBy link didn’t exist on R1-1, but the forward link to that requirement exists on TC1-2. I think these were the reasons why ELM decided for opt-in, there would be no backlinks.

 

David.

 

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>
Sent: 26 May 2022 18:46
To: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>; e.gentry@...
Cc: oslc-op@...
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

This is a good start, but we should understand how it supports the use cases and common practice.

 

On the issues we’ve been discussing on links: the OSLC specifications define vocabularies and shapes that specify links that would be reasonably considered inverses. Requirement validatedBy TestCase and TestCase validatesRquirement Requirement is one such example. However, OSLC does not specify which one is the property, which would be considered the inverse property, which or  “owed by” any particular server that supports RM and/or QM domains. Rather this is a server implementation decision, often driven by use cases/scenarios that support a particular work-flow – i.e., requirements vs. test driven develop in this case.

 

Fundamentally OSLC ResourceShape constraints have no way of indicating what a server expects to store vs. expects another server involved in a link relationship expects/can/has to store. So, implementations do what works for them and what is stored where must be documented outside OSLC discovery.

 

Added to that, OSLC delegated dialogs don’t establish a clear distinction between the requester and provider of the delegated dialog and who’s supposed to “own” the link – that is, which link property the pair of tools considers the actual source and target of the link, and whether the source or target resource will be the subject of the link property triple.

 

Jazz.net tools attempt to make this transparent, so the user doesn’t have to know which server is storing the link, or how the incoming links are stored or calculated. This is purely a usability issue. However, the participating servers do have to know because even through the creation of the link can be created from either direction, the servers must know which one stores it and implement the link creation accordingly. Again, there is no way to discover this.

 

We could expand ResourceShape to define inverse property constraints to provide a discoverable way for clients and servers to interoperate when creating links from either direction. I expect that might be a better approach than defining a number of profile special cases.

 

 

 

From: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:49 AM
To: Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>, Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>
Cc: "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

Hi, I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi,

 

I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran for taking extra time to explain some things to me.

 

/A

Unless otherwise stated above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU


Re: Link profiles

Robert Baillargeon
 

Indeed I agree that this is a good start to the discussion.  But as Jim identifies here we have some variability in the definition of where the link storage and inverse are stored.  If we go on the path that these are implementation-specific this will erode the value of OSLC and consistent integrations and portability for OSLC collaborations.  It needs to be formalized in the vocabularies of the standard or more desirable grow to a discovery method to allow for flexibility in the implementations that can arbitrate behaviors.  

Basically put as we look at the future of OSLC for consistency and scalability we are going to need to support ...
  1. Vocabulary that includes link types, link storage location (local attribute, local & backlink, discovery) , and link inverse discovery mechanisms (trs index, oslc query, etc.)
  2. Domain vocabulary discovery so endpoints can declare, extend, and discover new domains.
I agree that there is a need near-term to better declare a profile that states the basics of a good collaborating OSLC end-point (rather than just an endpoint that consumes some OSLC interfaces).  But we also need to look to the future to better support PLM and other domain tools (rather than overloading AM) and have consistent patterns of interaction and UX experiences.

We are looking forward to collaborating on these.  Let's focus on the current baseline profiles, but we should be also starting to draft where we want to go so that we can recruit other tooling to the OSLC Enterprise.

Robert




Chief Product Officer – Linked Data

418 N. Main Street 2nd Floor/Suite 200, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067, USA
Ph: 716 261 8338 
sodiuswillert.com

 


 

Try out our Jira and Confluence OSLC Tools on the Atlassian Marketplace


From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...> on behalf of Jim Amsden via lists.oasis-open-projects.org <jamsden=us.ibm.com@...>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 1:46 PM
To: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>; Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>; David Honey2 <david.honey@...>; e.gentry@... <e.gentry@...>
Cc: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
Subject: Re: [oslc-op] Link profiles
 

This is a good start, but we should understand how it supports the use cases and common practice.

 

On the issues we’ve been discussing on links: the OSLC specifications define vocabularies and shapes that specify links that would be reasonably considered inverses. Requirement validatedBy TestCase and TestCase validatesRquirement Requirement is one such example. However, OSLC does not specify which one is the property, which would be considered the inverse property, which or  “owed by” any particular server that supports RM and/or QM domains. Rather this is a server implementation decision, often driven by use cases/scenarios that support a particular work-flow – i.e., requirements vs. test driven develop in this case.

 

Fundamentally OSLC ResourceShape constraints have no way of indicating what a server expects to store vs. expects another server involved in a link relationship expects/can/has to store. So, implementations do what works for them and what is stored where must be documented outside OSLC discovery.

 

Added to that, OSLC delegated dialogs don’t establish a clear distinction between the requester and provider of the delegated dialog and who’s supposed to “own” the link – that is, which link property the pair of tools considers the actual source and target of the link, and whether the source or target resource will be the subject of the link property triple.

 

Jazz.net tools attempt to make this transparent, so the user doesn’t have to know which server is storing the link, or how the incoming links are stored or calculated. This is purely a usability issue. However, the participating servers do have to know because even through the creation of the link can be created from either direction, the servers must know which one stores it and implement the link creation accordingly. Again, there is no way to discover this.

 

We could expand ResourceShape to define inverse property constraints to provide a discoverable way for clients and servers to interoperate when creating links from either direction. I expect that might be a better approach than defining a number of profile special cases.

 

 

 

From: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:49 AM
To: Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>, Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>
Cc: "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

Hi, I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi,

 

I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran for taking extra time to explain some things to me.

 

/A


Re: Link profiles

Jim Amsden
 

This is a good start, but we should understand how it supports the use cases and common practice.

 

On the issues we’ve been discussing on links: the OSLC specifications define vocabularies and shapes that specify links that would be reasonably considered inverses. Requirement validatedBy TestCase and TestCase validatesRquirement Requirement is one such example. However, OSLC does not specify which one is the property, which would be considered the inverse property, which or  “owed by” any particular server that supports RM and/or QM domains. Rather this is a server implementation decision, often driven by use cases/scenarios that support a particular work-flow – i.e., requirements vs. test driven develop in this case.

 

Fundamentally OSLC ResourceShape constraints have no way of indicating what a server expects to store vs. expects another server involved in a link relationship expects/can/has to store. So, implementations do what works for them and what is stored where must be documented outside OSLC discovery.

 

Added to that, OSLC delegated dialogs don’t establish a clear distinction between the requester and provider of the delegated dialog and who’s supposed to “own” the link – that is, which link property the pair of tools considers the actual source and target of the link, and whether the source or target resource will be the subject of the link property triple.

 

Jazz.net tools attempt to make this transparent, so the user doesn’t have to know which server is storing the link, or how the incoming links are stored or calculated. This is purely a usability issue. However, the participating servers do have to know because even through the creation of the link can be created from either direction, the servers must know which one stores it and implement the link creation accordingly. Again, there is no way to discover this.

 

We could expand ResourceShape to define inverse property constraints to provide a discoverable way for clients and servers to interoperate when creating links from either direction. I expect that might be a better approach than defining a number of profile special cases.

 

 

 

From: Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:49 AM
To: Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>, Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, "e.gentry@..." <e.gentry@...>
Cc: "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Link profiles

 

Hi, I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi,

 

I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran for taking extra time to explain some things to me.

 

/A


Re: Link profiles

Michael Rowe
 

Thanks Andrii

 

-- 

Michael Rowe
STSM & MBA – Technical Strategist, ELM Architecture
IBM Engineering

+1(720)342-2713 Office
michael.rowe@...
@michaelrowe01
ibm.co/elm

Sustainable Software

 

 

 

From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...> on behalf of Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...>
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 11:49
To: Eran Gery <eran.gery@...>, David Honey2 <david.honey@...>, Jim Amsden <jamsden@...>, e.gentry@... <e.gentry@...>
Cc: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [oslc-op] Link profiles

Hi, I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi,

 

I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran for taking extra time to explain some things to me.

 

/A


Link profiles

Andrii Berezovskyi
 

Hi,

 

I put together a simple table for the possible profiles after the call: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fjjGvHrv2yPru8S_6HNoJ5atn6617cUfFUDRz5xAfKQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

Please look at them and tell me what you think. Thanks to Eran for taking extra time to explain some things to me.

 

/A


Re: Now: oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting - 05/26/2022 #cal-notice

Andrii Berezovskyi
 

Had a great meeting today, welcoming Michael Rowe and having a deep dive into Linking profiles: see https://github.com/oslc-op/oasis-open-project/blob/master/minutes/2022/2022-05-26.md for the MoM.

 

From: <oslc-op@...> on behalf of Group Notification <noreply@...>
Reply-To: "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>, "noreply@..." <noreply@...>
Date: Thursday, 26 May 2022 at 16:00
To: "oslc-op@..." <oslc-op@...>
Subject: [oslc-op] Now: oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting - 05/26/2022 #cal-notice

 

oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting

When:
05/26/2022
10:00am to 11:00am
(UTC-04:00) America/New York

Where:
https://meet.jit.si/oslc-op

Organizer: Jim Amsden jamsden@...

View Event

Description:
oslc-op contributors weekly telecon. 


One tap audio Dial In: +15124022718,,,,2979764690# (US) or +498938038719,,,,2979764690# (Germany) Looking for a different dial in number? Please see: https://meet.jit.si/static/dialInInfo.html?room=oslc-op

Meeting ID: 2979764690#

 

The meeting minutes are edited in https://hackmd.io/@driib/oslc-op-minutes/edit
Previous minutes can be found under https://github.com/oslc-op/oslc-admin/tree/master/minutes/2019 


OASIS OSLC Open Project group home: https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op 
oslc-op GitHub Organization: https://github.com/oslc-op
Mailing list: oslc-op@... (archives: https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op)


Now: oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting - 05/26/2022 #cal-notice

Group Notification <noreply@...>
 

oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting

When:
05/26/2022
10:00am to 11:00am
(UTC-04:00) America/New York

Where:
https://meet.jit.si/oslc-op

Organizer: Jim Amsden jamsden@...

View Event

Description:
oslc-op contributors weekly telecon. 


One tap audio Dial In: +15124022718,,,,2979764690# (US) or +498938038719,,,,2979764690# (Germany) Looking for a different dial in number? Please see: https://meet.jit.si/static/dialInInfo.html?room=oslc-op
Meeting ID: 2979764690#
 
The meeting minutes are edited in https://hackmd.io/@driib/oslc-op-minutes/edit
Previous minutes can be found under https://github.com/oslc-op/oslc-admin/tree/master/minutes/2019 

OASIS OSLC Open Project group home: https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op 
oslc-op GitHub Organization: https://github.com/oslc-op
Mailing list: oslc-op@... (archives: https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op)


A Special Majority Vote to consider OSLC Configuration Management Version 1.0 as a Project Specification has been set up

Chet Ensign
 

Participants of the OSLC Open Project,

A Special Majority Vote to consider OSLC Configuration Management Version 1.0 as a Project Specification has been set up.

The ballot opens on 24 May 2022 at 00:00 UTC. It closes 30 May 2022 at 23:59 UTC. You can access the ballot at:

https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op-pgb/message/239

This ballot is only open to voting members of the Project Governing Board. I currently show the following members as eligible to vote:

Jim Amsden (IBM)
Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
Axel Reichwein (Koneksys)

If you are interested in sponsoring the OSLC Open Project and becoming a member of the PGB, please send email to op-admin@....

Please feel free to send any questions this ballot to the list.

/chet

--

Chet Ensign

Chief Technical Community Steward

OASIS Open

   
+1 201-341-1393
chet.ensign@...
www.oasis-open.org


Re: Request a Special Majority Vote to approve a Sp ecification for OSLC Configuration Management V ersion 1.0. from OSLC-OP

Chet Ensign
 

This request has opened ticket https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TCADMIN-4194 to set up your ballot. Sending this to you since for some reason email from JIRA is not making it through right now. 

/chet

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 2:32 PM Chet Ensign via lists.oasis-open-projects.org <chet.ensign=oasis-open.org@...> wrote:
Your name:
  Jim Amsden
Project name:
  OSLC-OP
Project email address:
  oslc-op@...
Title and version number:
  OSLC Configuration Management Version 1.0.
Comment resolution log:
  https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op/topics
Approval:
  https://github.com/oslc-op/oasis-open-project/blob/master/minutes/2022/2022-01-13.md
Notes:
  The notification of intent to publish PS01 was sent middle of Jan, but it appears we forgot to request the SMV to approve the document.


Your request automatically opens a ticket in the project administrator's JIRA issue tracker. To see the current queue of support tickets and find yours, click here.



--

Chet Ensign

Chief Technical Community Steward

OASIS Open

   
+1 201-341-1393
chet.ensign@...
www.oasis-open.org


Request a Special Majority Vote to approve a Sp ecification for OSLC Configuration Management V ersion 1.0. from OSLC-OP

Chet Ensign
 

Your name:
  Jim Amsden
Project name:
  OSLC-OP
Project email address:
  oslc-op@...
Title and version number:
  OSLC Configuration Management Version 1.0.
Comment resolution log:
  https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op/topics
Approval:
  https://github.com/oslc-op/oasis-open-project/blob/master/minutes/2022/2022-01-13.md
Notes:
  The notification of intent to publish PS01 was sent middle of Jan, but it appears we forgot to request the SMV to approve the document.


Your request automatically opens a ticket in the project administrator's JIRA issue tracker. To see the current queue of support tickets and find yours, click here.


Re: [oslc-op-pgb] Formal notice of intent to publish OSLC Configuration Management Version 1.0

Andrii Berezovskyi
 

Hello,


I suspect we simply forgot or the OASIS request form submission did not go through and we forgot to follow.

Jim, Axel, should we re-request an SMV vote and promote Config to a PS? We should make it in time before everyone leaves for a summer break.

/Andrew

On 2022-01-13, at 21:24, Jim Amsden <jamsden@...> wrote:

Dear PGB members,

The rules require us to notify you at least 14 days before submitting the ballots for the spec drafts publication. We are hereby notifying you of the OP intention to publish Subject: Formal notice of intent to publish OSLC Configuration Management Version 1.0 in 2 weeks’ time.

The package is attached. Leave comments here or under Publish Config v1.0 PS01

Regards,
Andrew and Jim on behalf of the OSLC OP maintainers


<config-v1.0-ps01.zip>


Minutes 2022-05-19

Andrii Berezovskyi
 

Minutes from the today's meeting can be found under https://github.com/oslc-op/oasis-open-project/blob/master/minutes/2022/2022-05-19.md

/Andrew

281 - 300 of 1120