Setup redirects for old OSLC specification wikis #225
Comments
|
See also https://www-01preview.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSYMRC_6.0.6.1/com.ibm.rational.test.qm.doc/topics/r_oslc_services.html, these links should be included. |
Just created and tested the redirects mentioned in this table, can anyone test it to see if everything is correct? |
|
For QM spec: https://open-services.net/wiki/quality-management/index.html should have been https://archive.open-services.net/bin/view/Main/QmSpecificationV2.html All others were verified as correct. |
Just fixed it. |
berezovskyi
assigned berezovskyi, jamsden and ndjc and unassigned gabrielfdac and FabioRNT
|
@jamsden, @ndjc: so, I have slept on this and thought about a multitude of versions of the spec and how we consider them "complete", "authoritative", "obsolete" etc. So, I have switched from a table to a simple list with all the links present. See a side-by-side comparison:
We have a few more options: remove the "Governing TC" column and stack the links in the Status column (while renaming it to Editions, for example, and removing a link from the title). Also, we can use a dropdown instead of linked labels but that will prevent us from color-coding them. I was thinking to use them in the following way:
https://getbootstrap.com/docs/3.4/components/#available-variations |
|
And ofc we can show a tooltip for people who are not fluent in abbrspeak:
And this is how a dropdown can look like (did not have time to fix the styles but hope @gabrielfdac can help me out later):
|
|
Work is taking place in #244 |
|
I'm thinking about how this will scale. We will be publishing a lot of revisions of documents, project WD as needed to make the documents visible, PSPRD for public review, PS with various revisions. OASIS project standards, etc. Not all of these will need to be linked to open-services.net as many represent specification lifecycle artifacts rather than published standards. Documents can be in three places:
So I think we should only publish two versions on open-services.net - the finalized 2.x versions that are in common use today, and the latest published OASIS document, regardless of specification status (its noted in the document). Older versions can be accessed through the archive, OASIS documents or GitHub as needed. The Domains specifications are a bit different as they are suppose to be the 2.x specifications in the OASIS format. Its not clear we need to publish two versions of these. Let's discuss. |
I don't think I fully agree with the dichotomy. I think open-services should be a landing place for all people: developers, folks who want to read/review specs and the developers. I honestly don't think the larger OASIS community cares about our specs (other than asking why do we need OSLC) unless we actively engage them. The generation of the HTML code can be automated through some JSON data and templating. @gabrielfdac should be able to help with that. I think we are not publishing that "lot" that we can't add a link to every major revision of the spec (every CSPRD and higher). Github tags is the last place we should be forcing people to go through. Moreover, nobody has ever done this before here (as opposed to us tagging releases in Eclipse Lyo) and I don't see a reason to believe some discipline will magically emerge out of nothing. I don't think that adding a link should be that harder than git tagging the repo & making an email/forum announcement. Just to be clear, my proposal is just to LINK to the documents on open-services. There will be no documents published there. Everything will be hosted in the archive, OASIS, or Github (through GitHack).
All versions will be accessed through the resource where they were originally published. Nothing will be published on open-services.net. |
|
OSLC specification development can generate a lot of "noise" that is not interesting to people building OSLC client and server apps. This is the reason for separating the specification development vs. specification use concerns. OASIS will be actually publishing a rendered copy of the specs. The process for doing that is something we need to discuss soon. |
|
Yes and we can link to those specs. We don't have to announce every link update and save some noise.
…--
/Andrew
(from phone)
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 5:22 PM +0200, "Jim Amsden" <notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com>> wrote:
OSLC specification development can generate a lot of "noise" that is not interesting to people building OSLC client and server apps. This is the reason for separating the specification development vs. specification use concerns.
OASIS will be actually publishing a rendered copy of the specs. The process for doing that is something we need to discuss soon.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#225>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAPZXRC7NJPE4QZM6SX5B3PWQHUJANCNFSM4GKH2ZNA>.
|
|
A list of old spec links from @DavidJHoney: All the specs under https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/oslc-core/trunk/specs/#_trunk_specs_:
Specs under https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/oslc-ccm/tags/final/specs/#_tags_final_specs_:
Older specs under https://open-services.net/specifications/
Older specs (links now broken)
Broken links found by Google:
Other links found by Google: Broken links in https://www.w3.org/Submission/shapes/#OSLC: |
|
cc @jamsden and @ndjc we might as well deal with these too @DavidJHoney @jamsden what does the tag |
|
Please see https://open-services.net/specifications/ NB! More links on https://archive.open-services.net/specifications/index.html and https://docs.oasis-open.org/ |
|
due to oslc-op/oslc-specs#65 I have escalated the priority for this and added a pair of redirects for both wikis |
|
@DavidJHoney all of your links now resolve except for https://archive.open-services.net/bin/view/Main/AmSpecV2#AM_Resource_Definitions which redirects to a 404 wiki page redirecting visitors to https://archive.open-services.net/wiki/architecture-management/OSLC-Architecture-Management-Specification-Version-2.0/index.html. I will try to set up a redirect for this that would not cause a 404. |
|
https://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/AmSpecV2#AM_Resource_Definitions now redirects directly to https://archive.open-services.net/wiki/architecture-management/OSLC-Architecture-Management-Specification-Version-2.0/index.html#AM_Resource_Definitions but https://archive.open-services.net/bin/view/Main/AmSpecV2#AM_Resource_Definitions won't redirect you manually. Please reopen if I missed something. |
|
Re: what does the tag final mean in the links above? |
Many people have saved links to the old open-services.net specification wikis, and they are surprised when these links return 404. There is a button on the error page that takes the user to corresponding page in the archive. However, each of the specifications should have direct redirects to the specification wikis. For example, the OSLC Core 2.0 specification should redirect https://open-services.net/specifications/core-2.0/index.html to https://archive.open-services.net/specifications/core-2.0/index.html.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: