In the core vocab file, change the description of oslc:Inline to be "The representation of the object resource MUST be present in the representation of the described resource."
Also, start a discussion about the description of oslc:Representation and oslc:LocalResource.
oslc:LocalResource retains its original semantics to represent blank node.
oslc:InLine description is refined to no longer mention blank nodes so a URI can be used, including fragment URIs.
In the v2 vocabulary (we don't version the vocabulary, so we're not removing anything), the oslc:Inline resource (used as a value for an oslc:representation property) says:
"An inline (RDF blank node) representation."
I believe this is wrong, as oslc:Inline is used with oslc:Resource, which says "Resource: value is a resource at a specified URI (i.e. a URI Reference)." A value cannot be both a URI Reference and a blank node.
The member submission of Resource Shapes to the W3C describes oslc:Inline differently, and I believe that this description correctly matches the intention: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2014/SUBM-shapes-20140211/#representation "oslc:Inline: The representation of the object resource MUST be present in the representation of the described resource."
I suggest we change the description of oslc:Inline in the vocab to match the one from the member submission.
This issue would probably be more correctly addressed by the v2 "maintenance mode" working group at open-services.net, but as there has been no activity there for a long time, and as we are modifying the vocab for v3 as part of this TC's work, I'm raising it here.
(The description of oslc:Resource [the alternative to oslc:Inline] in the v2 vocab file also makes no sense: "A URI Reference representation to a resource", but I'm also not sure about the one in the member submission either: "The representaton of the object resource MUST NOT be present in the representation of the described resource." - I interpreted it more as "the representation of the object resource MUST be available by performing a GET on the object URI, irrespective of whether it is also inlined in the subject's representation". The member submission's interpretation might be more appropriate when describing the allowed body of a POST, whereas mine might make more sense when describing what gets returned from a GET.)