Minutes of the OASIS OSLC CCM TC meeting, Thursday January 26th.

["Nicholas Crossley" <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>]

Here are the delayed minutes of the OASIS
OSLC CCM TC meeting held on Thursday January 26th., also available at https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-ccm/Meetings/Telecon2017.01.26.

Agenda
        1  
     Roll Call
        2  
     Scribe nomination
        3  
     Review minutes of previous meeting at https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-ccm/Meetings/Telecon2017.01.12
        4  
     Change Management issues
        5  
     Configuration Management issues
        6  
     Any other business

Minutes
Edited chat transcript from room: oslc-ccm
2017-01-26 GMT-08:00
[07:07] Jim Amsden (IBM): Jim scribe
[07:07] Nick Crossley (IBM): Review previous
minutes at https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-ccm/Meetings/Telecon2017.01.12
[07:08] Jim Amsden (IBM): Previous minutes
approved
[07:08] Jim Amsden (IBM): action to send
summary of remaining CM open issues
[07:10] Jim Amsden (IBM): CM open issues
action done, in issue https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCCM-12
[07:10] Jim Amsden (IBM): Nick has data
for link type review from IBM, arising from issue 28, but still needs to
summarize. Action is still pending
[07:13] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Action: Martin
will review remaining CM issues and suggest priorities and next steps,
as per email https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oslc-ccm/email/archives/201701/msg00011.html
[07:16] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: CM and CCM are
separate work products and can go through the OASIS lifecycle independently
[07:19] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Do we want to
establish a target roadmap schedule for CM and CCM
[07:19] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Action: Nick
will update the config mgmt roadmap on the Wiki.
[07:20] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Action: Jim to
update the CM roadmap, it is very out of date
[07:21] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCCM-35should be moved to config management
[07:23] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Nick suggests
that proposal 2 seems ok. Can use the prefer header to control what the
client gets
[07:24] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: The issue is
that the LDPC to create a stream does not by itself provide a resource
shape, so how does a client know what to POST?
[07:25] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Nick suggests
that a creation factory and LDPC could be strongly related, LDPCs could
be the creation factories, and have a creationShape property.
[07:27] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Since there's
no requirement in CCM to support OSLC query, there's no need for a query
shape on this LDPC
[07:27] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: at least not
per stream
[07:28] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: CCM server could
offer query, but doesn't need to be separate per baseline/stream
[07:29] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: components could
have a large number of members. Clients might be only interested in a subset
[07:29] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: some kind of
query mechanism might be useful to select these subsets to reduce overhead
[07:30] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: not an issue
when getting a creation shape.
[07:30] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: selected properties
and/or prefer header can be used
[07:32] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: opens the question
for OSLC core to provide some means of querying LDPC
[07:38] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: 1st proposal
on issue 35: use approach 2 provided in the description, and recommend
CCM providers support selective properties on these LDPC resources
[07:39] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Prefer selected
properties over LDP Prefer headers as this will work better for existing
OSLC 2.0 clients
[07:41] Jim Amsden (IBM)11: OSLC selective
properties only specifies the properties, there's no where clause
[07:42] Jim Amsden (IBM)11: selective properties
could for example avoid getting the members of a large LDPC
[07:43] Jim Amsden (IBM)11: OSLC selective
properties is not the same as the select clause of an OSLC query.
[07:44] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Use
oslc.properties (see https://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OSLCCoreSpecQuery#oslc_select)
or Prefer header.
[07:49] Nick Crossley (IBM): Action: Nick
to write a revised proposal for issue 35, adding the resource shape to
the two LDPCs and that statement that the Prefer header SHOULD be supported
as per LDP standard, and that selective properties MAY be supported, as
ways to avoid needing to get the LDPC members while getting the creation
shape.
[07:52] Nick Crossley (IBM): No other business.
[07:53] Nick Crossley (IBM): Meeting adjourned