-
Type: Bug
-
Status: Closed
-
Priority: Minor
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
Component/s: None
-
Labels:None
-
Proposal:
This was the case in v2 (so perhaps we can defer this), but I don't see why we set "read-only" to true for these properties. I would have thought some servers might allow clients to create new ServiceProviders, or modify ones they previously created. e.g. a generic ServiceProviderCatalog server that acts as a registry of other servers. I'd suggest we have read-only as not specified (if that won't be problematic), but this is probably too big a thing to consider at this stage. It's not really causing a problem.
(Note: dcterms:identifier on oslc:Publusher - §A.6 - has an "unspecified" read-only value. Should it be consistent with the others?)