>From a discussion with John Arwe[1] and Joe Ross[2] , there are not well-defined requirements for reconciliation of oslc_asset:Asset and crtv:Path resources. We don't have a scenario that describes what is needed and, current implementers are not seeing cases where we have reconciliation of Asset and Path resource instances from multiple providers.
We will keep crtv:Path in the vocabulary but will move the descriptions of naming rules for oslc_asset:Asset and crtv:Path out of the specification. The workgroup will revisit this issue as we consider new scenarios. [1] http://open-services.net/forums/member/149 [2] http://open-services.net/forums/member/270 Thanks ! T Tuan Dang Tivoli OSLC governance, OSLC Reconciliation workgroup lead, Tivoli Common Data Model Internet: [email protected] phone: (919) 224-1242 T/L 687-1242
