Building on what Steve comments, I would like to request that we also try to capture the 3rd party integrations that have been tested with each entry. For example, a consumer could list what providers have been tested with the implementation. Maybe a column like "Integrations validated / supported".
[email protected] wrote on 11/03/2011 04:49:45 PM: > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > To: Lee J Reamsnyder/Durham/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: [email protected] > Date: 11/03/2011 04:51 PM > Subject: Re: [oslc] Looking for input on OSLC software and contributors > Sent by: [email protected] > > > From: Lee J Reamsnyder/Durham/IBM@IBMUS > > To: [email protected], > > Date: 11/03/2011 01:14 PM > > Subject: [oslc] Looking for input on OSLC software and contributors > > Sent by: [email protected] > > > > I've > > posted a table of OSLC consumers and providers on the OSLC website > > (http://open-services.net/software/). > > A few comments on this page: > 1) It is called "Software", why not "Implementers"? If it is software, > then should probably add a section for things like Eclipse Lyo. > 2) The column titled "Supported Specifications". Supported may be too > strong a word for some implementations. Perhaps just "Implemented Specs" > or just "Specs" (and people will understand). > 3) Something like a disclaimer and/or more descriptive text to introduce > what is being presented. Like "OSLC implementations have not been > validated by any 3rd party", etc > 4) It would be nice if the product link actually linked to where the > software documented/describes its OSLC support. To help "verify" that the > entry really does have some OSLC support described. > > Thanks, > Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/community_open-services.net >
