Minutes 2 April 2015

Minutes of 5 March 2015 approved unanimously
Next TC call will be on 16 April 2015

Actions

Nick to discuss with Jim and Chet re having multiple work products in the CCM TC
Nick, Sam and Martin P to review state of Actions document so that it can be included in Core specification - due Apr 16
Martin S and Jim to scan Actions document for issues with the content - due Apr 16
Jim will take ownership of Discovery and Common Vocabulary
Sam to initiate Delegated Guidance Note

Roll Call

Chat transcript from room: oslc

[07:05] List of attendees: Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM), David Honey, Harish (Software AG), Harish (Software AG)1, Jim Amsden, Julie DeMeester, Martin Pain (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Samuel Padgett (IBM), anonymous

[07:05] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Sam is scribe

[07:06] Harish (Software AG)1: Martin:I use an India Toll number to dial into the US bridge.

[07:07] Martin Sarabura (PTC): https://ptc.webex.com/ptc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=355676237&tollFree=1

[07:07] Martin Sarabura (PTC): This is the list of global callin numbers

[07:07] Martin Sarabura (PTC): India toll free 0008-00852-1525

[07:09] Harish (Software AG)1: Thank you. Joining in a moment

Approval of Minutes of 5 March 2015

[07:11] Samuel Padgett (IBM): No objections

Next call: 16 April 2015

[07:12] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Introductions - we have a couple of new members

[07:12] Samuel Padgett (IBM): First, Jim Amsden from IBM

[07:12] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: I've been with IBM for close to 20 years and Rational 11-12

[07:12] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Background in developing modeling tools. Also developed a WebDAV server, which became part of Eclipse

[07:13] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... I've also worked in OMG standards, including UML 2 and chair of SOA ML

[07:13] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Taking over Steve Speicher's role at IBM

[07:13] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... I've been a user of OSLC and a interest in Linked Data

[07:14] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Next, Julie DeMeester from Raytheon

[07:14] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Julie: I've been with Raytheon for 10 years

[07:15] David Honey morphed into David Honey (IBM)

[07:15] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... We have a corporate research project looking at OSLC linking

[07:15] Harish (Software AG)1 morphed into Harish (Software AG)

[07:15] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... We wanted to become involved in the standard

[07:16] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... In the past, we've developed some OSLC web services

[07:16] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Discussion: Document publish process

[07:17] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin S: Been in contact with Chat Ensign about the process

[07:17] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Some documents ready for public review, some are close, some are further away

[07:17] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... We can start down the standards track with all together as a multi-part work product or we could take them through each individually

[07:18] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Some documents are relatively far away from being ready

[07:19] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Do we want to take the subset that looks close to completion?

[07:23] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Sam: I believe it makes sense to go forward with a multi-part work product

[07:23] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... The documents that are behind are Actions, Link Guidance, and Compatibility

[07:24] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Actions will require significant work, so it might make sense to move that out of 3.0 into the next OSLC version (and 2.1 is in finalization at open-services.net)

[07:24] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Linking and compatibility seem important to leave in

[07:24] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: I believe per the OASIS process, to have different work products requires different TCs

[07:25] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Another consideration is dependencies between specs, which is easier to manage as a multi-part work product

[07:27] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin: Should Compatibility be part of the 3.0 work product?

[07:28] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: It might makes sense as a committee note because it's unusual for a standard to reference a previous version of the standard

[07:28] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: I propose we queue up a topic for the next meeting to discuss interoperability with the previous OSLC version

[07:29] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Nick: I would have an issue leaving out the actions until the next version. Configuration management is dependent on that

[07:30] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Nick: I'd rather not have to formally reference the open-services.net 2.1 standard

[07:31] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... That split would be a problem for me. I can help with the action spec

[07:31] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Regarding the TCs: we did set up the CCM TC to have multiple work products (change management and configuration management)

[07:32] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Action: Nick will address that with Jim and Chet

[07:36] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Action: Nick, Sam, and Martin P will review state of document to come up with an estimate to get the current document up to shape

[07:37] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Action: Martin S and Jim will look at the content of the actions spec

[07:37] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Julie will begin reviewing the documents as well

[07:38] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Status update on drafts

[07:41] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Link Guidance - Jim is not as involved in OSLC. Ian is updating the Link Guidance document

[07:41] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Compatibility - Sam will take ownership. Resource preview section has been updated

[07:42] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: Is there a requirement for 3.0 to have an interoperability story with 2.0?

[07:43] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... If there is a need, and I think there is, what are the implications on the actual design of 3.0 itself

[07:43] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Otherwise we create a barrier to adoption because there are a large number of 2.0 implementations

[07:44] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Nick: I agree. We need a very good compatibility and growth path

[07:45] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Discovery 3.0 - Jim will take ownership

[07:46] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Common Vocabulary - Jim will take ownership

[07:48] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Resource Preview Guidance - No update. Sam will own

[07:48] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Sam: I think it makes sense to include this as part of the OSLC 3.0 work product

[07:49] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin: No delegated UI guidance

[07:49] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Action: Sam will start a deleged dialogs guidance note

[07:49] Samuel Padgett (IBM): *delegated

[07:50] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Configuration Context Header

[07:51] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Nick: The configuration management spec requires a new HTTP header. The old one used an X- header that didn't need registration. At OASIS, we need a registered header with an RFC and proposal to IETF

[07:52] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Unfortunately you can't take a proposal to IETF without a standard document (or draft that is in a near-finished state)

[07:52] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... We are waiting for a Configuration Management 3.0 Committee Specification

[07:54] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: What about prior art in this area like WebDAV Delta-V that deals with Configuration Management?

[07:55] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Nick: They only addressed limited domains or limited scope in other ways. In OSLC, we're not attempting to define how a low-level config management tool works

[07:55] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... What we do specify is what the result of configuration management should look like

[07:55] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... and how you take configuration from different providers and glue those together into a virtual configuration

[07:56] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin S: What is the implication on this TC?

[07:57] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Nick: I don't there's any implication on the Core TC. The Core TC was involved in the first place because I approached for advice on whether we've applied for any other headers

[07:58] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: Is there any way to include the information in the request or response body to avoid the situation?

[07:58] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Nick: The spec provides multiple ways to do this, including query strings on the URI

[07:59] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... the header was viewed as easier to implement for clients

[08:01] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin S: We're nearly out of time. I will table our discussion of the other emails until next meeting

[08:02] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... I'd like to mention that it would be beneficial for the committee to have a co-chair

[08:02] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... If there's any interest, please let me know

[08:02] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: I'm certainly interested. I'm new to the TC, so I'm hesitant to jump right in, but I'm certainly interested

[08:03] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): I think anyone foolish enough to reject a volunteer should have the burden of volunteering themselves

[08:03] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin S: The Automation TC is looking for a chair

[08:04] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin P: I plan to focus more on implementation rather than standards, and I'm stepping down as chair even though I plan to be involved to some degree

[08:06] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin S: Any last business?

[08:06] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Meeting adjourned

oslc-core message