Kaz, For the vocabulary, you can give the most general rdfs:range for promcode:collects, which is promcode:ManagedItem. For the resource shapes, each collection type has a different shape, and in that shape you can give the most specific oslc:range. e.g. the shape for promcode:IssueCollection should describe the property promcode:collects as having the oslc:range as promcode:Issue. Concerning ReSpec, I need to understand what Steve has done. I'll respond to you after I do that. _________________________________________________________ Arthur Ryman, PhD Distinguished Engineer Master Inventor Academy of Technology Chief Data Officer, Application Platform IBM Systems Middleware 905.413.3077 (phone) 416.939.5063 (cell) IBM InterConnect 2015 From: Kazuhiro Funakoshi <
k-f@bk.jp.nec.com> To: "oslc-promcode@lists.oasis-open.org" <
oslc-promcode@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: 02/05/2015 09:37 PM Subject: [oslc-promcode] Difference between Vocabulary and ResourceShape description Sent by: <
oslc-promcode@lists.oasis-open.org> Hi members especially Arthur, I found that unifying descriptions in vocabulary and resource shape has some problems. As we discussed we have promcode:collects for 3 different use case: - ManagedItemCollection ? ManagedItem - IssueCollection ? Issue - (new) RiskCollection ? Risk Hereby we cannot state its range as “any combination of ManagedItem”. What about: - For resource shape description, we only state relationship between resources - For vocabulary description, we state these Another problem is technical, I’ve found using ReSpec we cannot refer description from resource shape to vocabulary. However, we don't have XSLT script for resource shape but only for vocabulary. My suggestion also will solve this. Otherwise, we can manage the common descriptions in parallel but it seems not a good idea. Any ideas? Kaz