Minutes from meeting April 16 2015

["Sarabura, Martin" <msarabura@ptc.com>]

Note

The attendance of voting members was lower than normal due to a couple of urgent customer situations and to two members not having attended two consecutive meetings. We had already highlighted the two major resolutions in email exchanges prior to this meeting and there were no objections, and the resolutions passed unanimously at this meeting. I have the option of overriding the automatic quorum calculation and under the circumstances have chosen to do so. Next meeting you will have the option of not accepting this meeting's minutes if you disagree.

Resolutions

• Accept minutes of April 2, 2015: Passed
• Accept Jim Amsden to be co-chair of committee: Passed

Actions

• Nick to raise an issue regarding more flexibility on icon size in resource preview
• Martin S to ensure that we have a link to the issue list from calendar event going forward
• Jim to pick up the documents not currently allocated
• Martin S to ensure that resource preview can be implemented on mobile
• Martin S to arrange a call with Jim to discuss co-chair responsibilities

Chat transcript from room: oslc

2015-04-16 GMT-08:00

[07:05] Harish (SoftwareAG): Team: Unfortunately I will not be able to join the meeting today due to a schedule conflict. My Regrets.

[07:05] Harish (SoftwareAG): I'll catch up with the minutes later.Good day to you all.

[07:06] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Sam is scribe

[07:07] Samuel Padgett (IBM): On the call: David Honey (IBM), Jim Amsden (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Nick Crossley (IBM), Samuel Padgett (IBM)

[07:07] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Approval of Minutes of 2 April 2015

[07:07] Samuel Padgett (IBM): https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-core/Meetings/Telecon2015.04.02#Minutes

[07:07] Samuel Padgett (IBM): No objections, minutes are approved

[07:07] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Next call: 30 April 2015

[07:08] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Vote to accept Jim Amsden as co-chair

[07:09] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1

[07:09] David Honey (IBM): +1

[07:09] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:09] Samuel Padgett (IBM): +1 !!

[07:10] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin: We may not have quorum. I will check to rules to see

[07:11] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: I'm prepared to pick up Sam's and Steve's work on the specs

[07:11] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin: Anyone else would like to pick up the documents

[07:11] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Sam is leaving IBM and will no longer be active in the TC

[07:12] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim will take ownership of Sam's documents. He will update the wiki

[07:13] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Nick: Question on resource preview: Why do we call for a fixed size of icon?

[07:16] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Sam: We've removed any requirement on icon sizes, but we don't have a way to provide multiple icons of different sizes

[07:16] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: Nick, can you raise this as an issue?

[07:17] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Action: Martin will make sure we have a link to the issue list and that it is always included in the agenda

[07:17] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Sam: We could use JIRA for issues

[07:19] Samuel Padgett (IBM): JIRA issues: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/oslccore

[07:19] Jim Amsden (IBM): https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/oslccore

[07:20] Samuel Padgett (IBM): The TC agrees to use JIRA for issues

[07:20] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Resolution to drop Actions from initial document set, accepted by CCM TC

[07:21] Samuel Padgett (IBM): CCM TC has agreed to remove actions from core

[07:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:21] Samuel Padgett (IBM): +1

[07:21] David Honey (IBM): +1

[07:22] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1

[07:22] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin Pain had a +1 on the mailing list

[07:22] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Resolution passed!

[07:22] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Status update on drafts - delivery milestones

[07:23] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Resource preview guidance

[07:24] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Sam: No change to document. This will be a committee note that doesn't necessarily need to be part of the OSLC Core 3.0 work product

[07:25] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: The guidance was derived from the 2.0 spec. It might need to be updated to make sure it's compatible with the 3.0 preview specification

[07:27] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: Discussion of the guidance for mobile is probably out of our scope

[07:31] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Action: Martin will verify that resource preview can be implemented on mobile

[07:33] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin: We should begin putting some milestones in place since we're getting close to done

[07:33] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: I will look at the different documents to see what I can commit to

[07:34] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... We should look closely at compatibility and discuss what we need to do

[07:36] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... The purpose of OSLC is to enable interoperability. The 3.0 specifications are largely incompatible with 2.0 in a few significant ways

[07:36] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Discovery has changed

[07:36] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Some capabilities are in 2.0 and not 3.0 (query, resource shapes, and others)

[07:37] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Our concern is that these changes will create a burden for existing implementations

[07:37] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... and pose problems for interoperability with 2.0

[07:38] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... We are looking at what the compatibility issues might be and exploring solutions like protocol converters, which can be used as a proxy to enable interoperability

[07:39] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... We still need to prove that that's possible

[07:40] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... We need to see if there is anything in the spec that would prevent interoperability

[07:44] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Sam: The intent was to allow implementations to still use capabilities that were in 2.0 and not in 3.0 (as long as they are not incompatible). There is still work to do to enable interoperability for things that *have* changed in 3.0

[07:45] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin: Any other comments or updates to these documents?

[07:45] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: Attachments - We think the spec is done, but there's no reference implementation or test cases. This is a risk

[07:45] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... We think it's a low risk since it's mainly a vocabulary on top of LDP

[07:46] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Link Guidance - I've read the spec. The biggest issue is the approach for putting properties on links like link labels.

[07:47] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... RDF reification is okay, but you might want to think about your domain. If there's a significant relationship, then maybe there is an associative object to mediate the relationship in a semantically rich way

[07:48] Nick Crossley (IBM): I agree

[07:48] Samuel Padgett (IBM): +1

[07:48] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: I think I'm ready to make the updates to that document

[07:55] Samuel Padgett (IBM): JSON Schema

[07:56] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Sam: I've added a JSON schema to the resource preview specification. I added it to a non-normative section because JSON schema is an Information IETF draft

[07:56] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... But it's useful as a reference for those implementing the spec

[07:56] Samuel Padgett (IBM): *Informational IETF draft

[07:57] Samuel Padgett (IBM): OSLC Core v3 Compliance

[07:58] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Martin S: Martin Pain had a good analysis on what compliance really means. In light of v2 and v3 interoperability, do we want to include this anyway?

[07:59] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: When someone develops a domain specification, what parts of Core do they expect someone to implement? Just the parts they need or all of it?

[07:59] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... And does discovery provide enough information to for clients to see if the capability is there

[08:02] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: One approach: We would require discovery only, and other capabilities are optional

[08:04] Samuel Padgett (IBM): ... Do we require LDP?

[08:04] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Nick: I think this is a key question. Do we want OSLC Core to require resources be LDP resources

[08:06] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: It's an important question. I think we should have resources be LDP resources for interoperability

[08:07] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Nick: If we don't require LDP, then OSLC has to define a lot of behavior separately. If we do require LDP, there is a cost to adoption

[08:07] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: Can we say we don't require all of LDP, but we require certain LDP behaviors?

[08:11] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Jim: If LDP is one of the fundamental missing links to RDF adoption, not using it means we are not taking advantage

[08:13] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Action: Martin will schedule a call with Jim to discuss co-chair responsibilities

[08:15] Samuel Padgett (IBM): Meeting adjourned