>> reviews so could change but, if it is approved then you should not >> assume MSClusterServer is a SoftwareServer resource.
> Of course something could be both an rdfs:Container and a > crtv:SoftwareServer. Currently container doesn't have any > identificatrion rules so it would not be recomciled. Maybe I'm not parsing the intent correctly, but as written I'd have to say "of course" ... both statements are true, but they say different things. Janet's says !(MSClusterServer => SoftwareServer), and Joe's says Exists(rdfs:Container && crtv:SoftwareServer). The relationship between the two is so distant that I'm not actually sure why they crop up in the same thread. > Xiao Liang needs to further differentiate the type of > crtv:SoftwareServer for processing in his performance monitoring product. > > Proposed additions are : > > crtv:ABAPServer > crtv:MSSQLServer > crtv:MSEXCHANGEServer > crtv:MSActiveDirectory > crtv:MSSharepointServer > crtv:MSIIS > crtv:MSClusterServer > crtv:MSDOTNETFramework Additions *to what*? Vocabulary? Spec? Best practices? If I'm not sure of the question, I have no way to form an informed opinion. Based purely on appearances, most of those are Microsoft product names. - Ideally, Microsoft would own those definitions in a Microsoft-controlled namespace URI. - Less ideally, but still less ugly than other alternatives, vocabulary(ies) exist in other places that define URIs for those objects. What due diligence has been done to demonstrate that no (zero) other vocabulary(ies) exist that can be re-used for this purpose? Nothing in DMTF or OASIS, say, where Microsoft does participate? Nothing in IANA registries? See EMS for an example of decent due diligence. I don't know that I'd ever support this kind of thing. It's a horrible precedent IMO. The concepts are owned by their owners; the proposed predicate names appear to make this Painfully Obvious. If one product needs this, it does not have to land in Reconciliation (the spec) or CRTV (the vocabulary). Neither is or should become a dumping ground for any one product, or any one vendor for that matter. If IBM wants to agree on what the values should be for interop amongst IBM products, fine, do it in an IBM-controlled namespace where it's crystal clear that it's a hack necessary (if this is in fact true) because the concept owners fail to identify the concepts they own uniquely. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
