It sounds like there is concensus from the affected parties on this but I think as a matter of good governance we should provide one last opportunity to discuss
at our next meeting.
Perhaps a very short discussion but it's good to have a vote recorded formally.
I will post the agenda early next week. If anybody would like to add topics to the agenda please email me.
R&D Fellow, PTC
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
On Behalf Of Martin P Pain
Sent: April-10-15 8:55 AM
To: Jim Amsden
Subject: Re: [oslc-core] OSLC 3.0 Core Actions status and future direction
While there could be some benefits to using OSLC Actions in CCM (namely: the ability to link together a delegated UI dialog for performing the action together with a POST or
Automation request for doing the same; and [when used with Automation 2.1] the ability to use a delegated UI dialog to configure an action at one point then have it executed unattended later [one or more times]), if CCM decide not to use OSLC Actions then
I have no problem with it not being included in Core v3.
From: Jim Amsden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/04/2015 17:03
Subject: [oslc-core] OSLC 3.0 Core Actions status and future direction
Sent by: <email@example.com>
During the OSLC CCM meeting today (https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-ccm/Meetings/Telecon2015.03.26),
the TC discussed the state of the current OSLC 3.0 Core Actions specification and the dependencies CCM has on that specification. In summary, the results of the meeting were:
1. Actions may be unnecessary for managing the Change Management oslc-cm:state property and the TC is exploring using its existing specification for state transitions rather than relying on actions.
2. Configuration Management involves complex operations such as creating a baseline that currently rely on Actions. However the CCM TC is also exploring other approaches that utilize LDP containers that would further decouple CCM from Actions.
The current Actions draft document is essentially a reformatted version of the open-services.net 2.0 specification and needs quite a bit of work. There are a number of empty sections, no scenarios, and no examples in the specification. There is currently no
editor assigned to the Actions specification, and the Core TC may not have sufficient resources for timely completion of this specification.
In addition, the Actions specification, and the related Automation specification are quite complex and may result in implementation challenges for clients and servers. Given the level of adoption and experience with the current specifications, there is some
risk that Actions could lead to unfortunate delays in completing the other Core 3.0 and CCM specifications, create undue burden on implementers, and/or introduce capabilities that are not yet ready for standardization.
If the CCM TC no longer has a dependency on Actions, there may be little value in including Actions in the 3.0 multi-part submissions, and little motivation for delaying the 3.0 draft submissions in order to complete Actions.
The Core TC should consider deferring Actions from the 3.0 draft specifications. Clients and server implementers can still use the existing open-services.net 2.0 Actions specifications if these are needed with the OSLC 3.0 Core and Domain specifications. This
will give more time to better understand the scenarios that need to be supported, gain more experience in how the current specifications meet those needs, and capture the challenges and point points that eventual standards should address.
Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
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