oslc-op / oslc-specs

OSLC OP specifications and notes
https://open-services.net/specifications/
24 stars 9 forks source link

Inconsistent citation references across 7 parts of OSLC Core 3.0 #305

Closed DavidJHoney closed 4 years ago

DavidJHoney commented 4 years ago

Here are Citation forms for the 7 parts of core: [OSLC-Core-3.0-Part1] [OSLC-Discovery-3.0] [OSLC-ResourcePreview-3.0] [OSLC-Dialogs-3.0] [OSLC-Attachments-3.0] [OSLC-Shapes-3.0] [OSLC-CoreVocab-3.0]

There are several inconsistencies:

  1. All but the first station ends with "3.0".
  2. All but the first uses part of the title not the part number.
  3. Two of them use Core, the other 5 do not. But one use of Core is hyphenated the other not.

Should we change these to: [OSLC-Core-Overview-3.0] [OSLC-Core-Discovery-3.0] [OSLC-Core-ResourcePreview-3.0] [OSLC-Core-Dialogs-3.0] [OSLC-Core-Attachments-3.0] [OSLC-Core-Shapes-3.0] [OSLC-Core-Vocab-3.0]

berezovskyi commented 4 years ago

Chet gave us a relative carte blanche, we are free to proceed as suggested.

-- /Andrew (from phone)

On 30 Jan 2020, at 16:34, David Honey notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

Here are Citation forms for the 7 parts of core: [OSLC-Core-3.0-Part1] [OSLC-Discovery-3.0] [OSLC-ResourcePreview-3.0] [OSLC-Dialogs-3.0] [OSLC-Attachments-3.0] [OSLC-Shapes-3.0] [OSLC-CoreVocab-3.0]

Should we change these to: [OSLC-Core-Overview-3.0] [OSLC-Core-Discovery-3.0] [OSLC-Core-ResourcePreview-3.0] [OSLC-Core-Dialogs-3.0] [OSLC-Core-Attachments-3.0] [OSLC-Core-Shapes-3.0] [OSLC-Core-Vocab-3.0]

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/oslc-op/oslc-specs/issues/305?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAAPZXQ6JB4X76EJ7SWNHVDRALXRRA5CNFSM4KNYCDYKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4IJ34UDQ, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAPZXTPNBUGCN7HZSOTGQ3RALXRRANCNFSM4KNYCDYA.

jamsden commented 4 years ago

However, I'm not motivated to republish all the existing documents to achieve this consistency unless there's something else we need to change.

jamsden commented 4 years ago

I see little reason for changing these at this point. Reopen if you strongly disagree.