> Either that second action needs rdf:type oslc:StateTransitionAction or it is stating a side-effect not an intention/desire.
I was not going all the way there, but any illumination the question caused I'll happily accept credit for ;-) Could have been that there was/is another reason for its absence that I just didn't see. If it *is* added to the second, then the type alone simply is no longer a distinguishing characteristic, so the narrative that the client uses it in one case but not the other falls apart. If the just-deconstructed narrative was the only justification for defining that action type, it appears we can define less without losing the ability to support the scenario - and that's what we should do, if true. Just because I was reading in some "intentful" connotation, means neither that doing so is/was correct nor that distinguishing between intent-ful and side-effect in prose is feasible in any reliable way. It seems we all agree *that's* a lost cause. It seems likely to me that the distinction is based on how the client is using it, just like the template discussion. Hence, running Steve's logic forward, a client that just wants to suspend the work item could choose to look only at desiredState, and since (in this example) it has a choice, it can choose any of them. A client that understands all the types involved could use them to break the desiredState tie; a client that only knows oslc: types has no information it can use to prefer one vs the other, and will do whatever it's coded to do (punt to an error flow, pick according to some unspecified algorithm, ask a user, etc). Maybe it prefers Actions whose type set it fully understands, in which case the (present but opaque) extra type on the second means it avoids that choice. We can't stop this case from happening, that I can see, without abandoning the duck-typing (which is what pattern recognition rules boil down to) that we're relying on for flexibility and extensibility. The client code either understands all of the content, or it doesn't, and in either case it has to choose if/how to proceed. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
