Inside the current revision of the proposal for an OData Delta Query Protocol i.e. [OData Delta Query Protocol Design 2012-12-19.docx](https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47755/OData%20Delta%20Query%20Protocol%20Design%202012-12-19.docx) the term tombstone should IMO better be introduced before its first appearance on page 6 (result maintenance and atom format describing sections).
I suggest to do this inside the section "Delta Responses" on pages 3 or 4 since it is simply a "deleted-link" with a cooler name, right? ... which is part of the response and not the request.
Update:
Old proposal was to "Define the term tombstone (virtual entity handle for deleted entities) before using it."
Following the feedback in a comment by Mike it is now proposed to replace instead (as addressed in upcoming revision).
Field | Original Value | New Value |
---|---|---|
Summary | Name OData object/concept name for tombstone before its usage in Result Maintenance and ATOM format describing sections inside ODQP proposal pages 6 and later | Declare OData object/concept name for tombstone before its usage in Result Maintenance and ATOM format describing sections inside ODQP proposal pages 6 and later |
Proposal | Define the term tombstone (virtual entity handle for deleted entities) before using it. | Remove the use of "tombstone" and consistently use "deleted entry" to not introduce a new concept just explaining a wording variation. |
Description |
Inside the current revision of the proposal for an OData Delta Query Protocol i.e. [OData Delta Query Protocol Design 2012-12-19.docx](https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47755/OData%20Delta%20Query%20Protocol%20Design%202012-12-19.docx) the term tombstone should IMO better be introduced before its first appearance on page 6 (result maintenance and atom format describing sections). I suggest to do this inside the section "Delta Responses" on pages 3 or 4 since it is simply a "deleted-link" with a cooler name, right? ... which is part of the response and not the request. |
Inside the current revision of the proposal for an OData Delta Query Protocol i.e. [OData Delta Query Protocol Design 2012-12-19.docx](https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47755/OData%20Delta%20Query%20Protocol%20Design%202012-12-19.docx) the term tombstone should IMO better be introduced before its first appearance on page 6 (result maintenance and atom format describing sections). I suggest to do this inside the section "Delta Responses" on pages 3 or 4 since it is simply a "deleted-link" with a cooler name, right? ... which is part of the response and not the request. Update: Old proposal was to "Define the term tombstone (virtual entity handle for deleted entities) before using it." Following the feedback in a comment by Mike it is now proposed to replace instead (as addressed in upcoming revision). |
Proposal | Remove the use of "tombstone" and consistently use "deleted entry" to not introduce a new concept just explaining a wording variation. |
Remove the use of "tombstone" and consistently use "deleted entry" to not introduce a new concept just explaining a wording variation. Changes applied as proposed: Rewritten as suggested in version 1.3: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/odata/download.php/47996/OData%20Delta%20Query%20Protocol%20Design%202013-1-23.docx |
Environment | [Proposed] |
Resolution | Accepted: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/48005/odata-meeting-22_on-20130124-minutes.html#odata-210 | |
Status | New [ 10000 ] | Closed [ 6 ] |
Component/s | OData Protocol v1.0 [ 10267 ] |
Environment | [Proposed] | [Closed] |
Status | Closed [ 6 ] | Open [ 1 ] |
Resolution | Fixed [ 1 ] | |
Status | Open [ 1 ] | Resolved [ 5 ] |
Status | Resolved [ 5 ] | Applied [ 10002 ] |
Status | Applied [ 10002 ] | Closed [ 6 ] |
Readability of summary