And because EU switched daylight savings ahead of North America, I now have a conflict and will not be able to attend today’s call.

I was trying to distinguish the content hash from state. If you create a new version of a versioned artifact and change none of its data, that will create a new state, and that state will be associate

Sounds like the content hash fullfills the same functionality as the ETag? No, they serve different purposes and have different usage. An Etag header value directly represents the state of a resource.

The point about using a content hash is that it is not necessarily state-specific. For example, a user might change a custom property on a requirement, and because that is not used for the content has

Jad, I sounds like you’re describing link validity. See https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/elm/7.0.1?topic=traceability-link-validity There is a published vocabulary for it at https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/

There can be multiple motivations to servers providing resource shapes: As you say, it is required for integrating that with ELM Jazz Reporting Services. When a client consumes a creation factory, it

In the opt-in case, we want to recommend that clients only store the forward link in the application that owns the subject URI of the link. One way for the profile to provide guidance is to enumerate

Re: Currently no one outside ELM implements shapes Resource shapes are a central part of OSLC core, and I think it highly unlikely that no non IBM OSLC server implements them. I am not aware that we h

Perhaps this will be clearer with an example. Say a resource shape for a test case defines an OSLC property: dcterms:title “Validates requirement” oslc:propertyDefinition oslc_qm:validatesRequirement

It’s not a new topic. The issue being discussed is knowing which side of the link should store the link. Knowing, for example, that validatesRequirement stored on a test case has an inverse validatedB

ELM already uses a http://jazz.net/ns/jrs#inversePropertyDefinition in resource shapes to tie together forward and backward links. Report Builder uses that to query for the union of the forward and ba

Re OR queries for incoming links: the in_op may be used (if supported) to search for many links in a single where clause. Another possible approach is to get all the triples for which the resource is

To clarify a point Ed made about project area associations in ELM. For most, but not all , JAF applications in IBM Rational ELM, if you want to create a relationship between artifacts in different pro

We have an ELM development all-hands meeting starting at the same time as the OSLC OP meeting. So at the least, I will be late joining. At the worst, I may be unable to join at all. Best regards, Davi

Gray, forwarded you the meeting invite. Unlikely today’s call will happen as Jim, Ed, and I cannot attend.

A meeting has moved and now conflicts, so I cannot attend the OSLC OP meeting today.

Hi Andrii, I echo the comments of others. Your contribution over the years has been stellar and most appreciated. It’s quite understandable that you need to focus on your PhD. I regret that I’ve not b

Thu 2nd June is a UK public holiday, so I won’t be attending the OSLC OP meeting. I will look at this next week.

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

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 proper