Hi. Thanks for having taken into account our feedback, and the responses provided. I'm clarifying a few of the still unclear ones bellow.
Le samedi 19 juin 2010 à 15:05 -0400, Steve K Speicher a écrit : > Olivier Berger <[email protected]> wrote on 05/27/2010 > 09:15:48 AM: > SNIP > > * Base requirements / Compliance : which OSLC-Core version explicitely ? > > (1.0 ?) must OSLC-CM V2 be compliant with ? (I assume not any later > > version without OSLC-CM version increment ?) > > I am not sure I understand the issue here. The current draft says that it > depends on Core 2.0. Are you suggesting that is should state "at least" > Core 2.0? No, I think these should be exact versions dependencies more probably... In any case, maybe this has evolved in between and if now version is mentioned, then fine ? > ISSUE logged to track this OK, let's see what others think... I had no real clear idea of version compatibility implementation issues, just wondered... > > * Request and Updating Properties -> add ... Updating /RESOURCE/ > > Properties. > > I don't understand this comment, what are you proposing as a change? Is > it the need to qualify properties as being "Resource" properties? I proposed to replace "Requesting and Updating Properties" by "Requesting and Updating Resource Properties" IIRC. Now, I'm not so much sure why this would improve... maybe properties were ambiguous in the context. Would have to do a full re-read ;) Let's forget about it. Sorry about all the new ISSUEs that were created ;) Best regards, P.S.: going back to implementing automated tests for testing the REST interfaces (CM 1.0)... ;) -- Olivier BERGER <[email protected]> http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)
