Minutes for OASIS OSLC CCM TC meeting Dec 17 2015

["Nick Crossley" <ncrossley@us.ibm.com>]

Here are the draft minutes for the OASIS OSLC CCM TC meeting held on December 17th, 2015. These minutes are also available at https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-ccm/Meetings/Telecon2015.12.17.

The next meeting will be on January 14th, 2016.

Chat transcript from room: oslc-ccm 2015-12-17 GMT-08:00

[07:05] Peter Hack (IBM): Peter is scribe.

[07:05] List of attendees: Brian Steele (IBM), David Honey (IBM), Jim Amsden (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Nick Crossley (IBM), Peter Hack (IBM), anonymous

[07:05] Nick Crossley (IBM): Minutes of previous meeting: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-ccm/Meetings/Telecon2015.12.03

[07:06] Peter Hack (IBM): Minutes of previous meeting accepted.

[07:06] Peter Hack (IBM): Change Management topics

[07:07] Jim Amsden (IBM): . CM2.0 defines property oslc_cm:status and defines a number of enumeration literal URIs for the values. CM3.0 defines oslc_cm:state and appears to be in the process of using OSLC 2.0 Actions to define the values and permissible state changes. This will create an incompatibility with CM2.0. Do we want to do this, or is compatibility more important than richer state management in the vocabulary? Or do we need to include both?

[07:07] David Honey (IBM): Is this logged in JIRA?

[07:12] Peter Hack (IBM): One reason for moving to Actions is to allow servers to make arbitrary changes to multiple properties (PUT could have accomplished the same thing)

[07:14] Peter Hack (IBM): Jim - Not sure Actions really add anything that can't be accomplished with 2.0 and the incompatibility is a cost. Core still needs to do more work on Actions, too.

[07:16] Peter Hack (IBM): Nick - Could have CM-Actions but would be better to have generic Actions across domains.

[07:21] Peter Hack (IBM): Nick - If Actions are not ready, is a 3.0 worth it?

[07:21] Peter Hack (IBM): Jim - Other motivations such as subtypes could be justification.

[07:23] Peter Hack (IBM): Nick - We should strive for compatibility if possible.

[07:25] Peter Hack (IBM): Jim - Proposes that changes to CM 3.0 are intended to be compatible with CM 2.0. A 2.0 client should work with a 3.0 server. A 3.0 client could work with a 2.0 server if the client is smart enough to confine itself to 2.0 interactions.

[07:27] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1

[07:27] Jim Amsden (IBM): +1

[07:27] Peter Hack (IBM): +1

[07:27] David Honey (IBM): +1

[07:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:27] Brian Steele (IBM): +1

[07:27] Peter Hack (IBM): That proposal was accepted.

[07:29] Peter Hack (IBM): Jim - Proposes removing OSLC CM State and retain CM Status for backward compatibility and defer support for Actions until complete.

[07:29] David Honey (IBM): +1

[07:29] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1

[07:29] Jim Amsden (IBM): +1

[07:29] Brian Steele (IBM): +1

[07:29] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:29] Peter Hack (IBM): +1

[07:30] Peter Hack (IBM): Nick - Note that Status can be extended.

[07:33] Jim Amsden (IBM): 3. There are many deprecated relationship properties defined in CM2.0 that are not currently included in the draft CM3.0 spec or resource shapes. These include: testedByTestCase, affestsTestResults, blocksTestExecutionREcord, relatedTestExecutionREcord, relatedTestCase, relatedTestPlan, relatedTestScript. Can these be safely removed from CM3.0 vocabulary without creating compatibility issues?

[07:34] Peter Hack (IBM): Nick - Deprecation does not remove the property, but adds Archaic.

[07:35] Jim Amsden (IBM): 4. There are some individuals defined in the CM2.0 vocabulary that specify values for oslc:usage, e.g., oslc_cm:task rdfs:isDefinedBy oslc_cm: ; rdfs:label "task" ; rdfs:comment """used by QM and PPM tools for associating change requests into executable and track-able items.""" . Should these individuals continue to be provided in CM3.0 given that there are now specific classes defined for some of these usage patterns? oslc_cm:Task a rdfs:Class, oslc_cm:ChangeRequest ; rdfs:isDefinedBy oslc_cm: ; rdfs:label "Task" ; rdfs:comment """An executable and trackable activity. Tasks can be used in many context. A QM tool that create tasks to write test plans and test cases is one example.""" .

[07:37] Peter Hack (IBM): Nick - Task is not an instance of a ChangeRequest. It's a subclass of a ChangeRequest.

[07:39] Jim Amsden (IBM): http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2#Usage_Identifiers

[07:40] Peter Hack (IBM): Nick - Used to distinguish dialogs and query capabilities.

[07:42] Peter Hack (IBM): Nick - This approach might be more efficient than using rdf:type in the URL.

[07:44] Peter Hack (IBM): Jim - Some additional changes based on Core changes may be necessary. May have updated early version available by Monday (or
first of the year at latest).

[07:44] Peter Hack (IBM): Configuration Management topics

[07:45] Peter Hack (IBM): Review of changes on cset branch.

[07:46] Peter Hack (IBM): Some tools can represent change sets as deltas to a
configuration.

[07:48] Peter Hack (IBM): In the future, we may allow change sets to be configurations. A change set could have just the deltas which requires a reference to the original configuration or it could have a flattened state that would not require a reference to the original configuration.

[07:50] Peter Hack (IBM): In some systems, you can apply a delta to any configuration. Others represent them as flattened.

[07:54] Peter Hack (IBM): Jim - Could we have a ChangeSet as the set of changes and a ChangeSetConfiguration as a result of applying the change set?

[07:55] Peter Hack (IBM): Nick - We can consider extending some of this in the future.

[07:57] Peter Hack (IBM): Expects that we'll want a 2.0 spec that extends the 1.0. Useful to extend the vocabulary now but defer defining some of the shapes until a later version.

[08:02] Peter Hack (IBM): Nick - Asks Martin to evaluate if ChangeSet terms might be useful in a 2.0

[08:03] Peter Hack (IBM): No further meetings in 2015.

[08:03] Peter Hack (IBM): Meeting adjourned.