Re: [oslc-automation] OSLC Automation v3 spec drafting

[Martin P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com>]

Thanks Steve,

My current thinking (happy to discuss,
iterate on & improve, of course) is that the content I've put in the
"introduction" is use-case driven (well, driven by the primary
pattern of interaction) and this is composed of references to a number
of units (the hyperlinks). Then under "capabilities" I'm just
defining each of those units (many of which are simply saying "this
thing from {OSLC Core|LDP}, but for Automation Plans"). I haven't
been grouping the "capabilities" section by resource type (at
least not yet) as it isn't required for that way of reading the spec, which
is what I've had in mind.

If it would help other ways of reading
the spec, then it would be worth doing.

However, I'm not sure that personally
I want the main ("capabilities") section grouped based on resource
type. I want the most-used things first. So other things (like Automation
Plan creation dialogs, if we include them - I'd need to write a scenario
for them, but I have one in mind - not that I'd implement it) would be
included later. Probably under an "extensions" header.

You may notice I called this spec "OSLC
Automation 3.0 basics". Because I'm split as to whether these things
I think of as "extensions" (which are the things listed under
the "Other means of achieving
this include:" lists in the
introduction) would be better in separate document(s), and leave only the
primary/most used things in this document.

Perhaps that will come out when I've
fleshed it out a bit more, then we can have a proper discussion as a TC
as to whether this is the route we want to go. (Happy to continue discussing
it on the mailing list until that time too).

(Suggestions for a better name for the
section called "capabilities" are welcome - of course having
a top-level section for each resource type would give us better headings.)

Martin




From:      
 Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
To:      
 Martin P Pain/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:      
 oslc-automation@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:      
 02/12/2014 14:11
Subject:    
   Re: [oslc-automation]
OSLC Automation v3 spec drafting

---

Martin, 

Good start, the page doesn't load respec script due to http vs https problem.
 It works ok if you load from (http://) for example: http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/oslc-automation/specs/oslc-automation-basics-v3.html

It works for both if you update to use src='' 

Regarding "Capabilities" section, I guess I was thinking of something
a bit high-level, such as "Automation" or "Automation Plan",
which would have sub-categories of "dialog", etc.  Though
this is still fairly open and each spec have their own needs.

Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> http://open-services.net



From:        Martin
P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com> 
To:        oslc-automation@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:        12/02/2014
05:08 AM 
Subject:        [oslc-automation]
OSLC Automation v3 spec drafting 
Sent by:        <oslc-automation@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

I have started drafting the OSLC Automation v3 spec.
The main changes I want to put in are concerned with making it easier to
read (for client implementors, server implementors, and for those wanting
to apply OSLC Automation to other domains). 

The work I've done so far is here: https://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/oslc-automation/specs/oslc-automation-basics-v3.html

Please have a look, particularly at: 
1.
The introduction section
(this is what I want people to understand about OSLC Automation as soon
as they come to the spec). 
2. How I'm breaking the "capabilities" section up. (I don't expect
the Auto Plan Selection Dialog section to contain much more that it does
right now, but other sections that are more Automation-specific will do).
3. The fact that the resource shapes are all at the end, not with the individual
sections in "capabilities". 

Even if you don't have time to help draft it, it would be very helpful
to have your feedback on whether it is communicating to you what you would
need to know. 

Thanks, 
Martin

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU 

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU