- From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:24:09 -0500
- To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
- CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
hello arnaud. On 2013-01-18 19:44 , "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote: >IBM Rational had the same need of being >able to communicate to the client what the resources they can create look >like. They ended up defining something called Resource Shape [1]. > >"In some cases, >to create resources and to query those that already exist within an OSLC >Service, OSLC clients needs a way to learn which properties are commonly >used in or required by the service. Resource Shape Resources meet this >need by providing a machine-readable definition of an OSLC resource type." > >This is one feature we (IBM) decided >not to include in the Linked Data Basic Profile submission for the sake >of keeping the scope limited to a set of core features but we are >interested >in exploring in the future. I would say this is out of scope for this WG >though. > >[1] >http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OSLCCoreSpecAppendixA?sortcol=table >;table=up#oslc_ResourceShape_Resource very interesting, thanks for the link. this may be the missing "schema/validation" piece that is so important for many service-oriented interactions: how can services expose descriptions of expectations that are not hard-coded in the protocol, but must be discoverable at runtime? i am wondering whether these ResourceShapeResources have been reused in other places/projects, or what kind of workaround other places/projects have developed to be able to expose their expectations of what clients should provide. cheers, dret.
Received on Monday, 21 January 2013 13:25:56 UTC