OSLC CORE TC Minutes September 29, 2016

Please note we received feedback during our meeting - but unfortunately just after our vote. Please review the feedback because we want to determine whether we should delay our ballot. The link to the comment is near the end of the minutes.

Scribe

David Honey (IBM)

Attendees

David Honey (IBM)
Harish Krishnaswamy (Software AG)
Jad El-khoury (KTH)
Jim Amsden (IBM)
Martin Sarabura (PTC)
Nick Crossley (IBM)

Regrets

Resolutions

Vote to submit ballot request for vote on committee spec

Actions

Jim to propose method for access context discovery
TC should review comments received and decide whether we should delay the request for committee specification
If we decide to proceed, Martin to submit request for a ballot

Chat transcript from room: oslc

[07:08] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): David volunteered as scribe

[07:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC): https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-core/Meetings/Telecon2016.09.15

[07:09] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Minutes accepted.

[07:10] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Action: Nick to check whether trs patch was deployed. Yes it is.

[07:10] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin to post issue for above if doesn't exist already

[07:11] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Action: Martin to post issue if trs patch issue did not exist. Issue should be closed.

[07:11] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-74

[07:12] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Action: Jim to propose method for access control discovery.

[07:12] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Action: To define more general approach than JSON-LD.

[07:13] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Action: Jim to define more general approach than JSON-LD. Still outstanding.

[07:13] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Last action can be removed.

[07:14] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Action: Nick to update example in issue 68 to use non-identifying team names per best practices. Now completed.

[07:15] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Action: Nick to update proposal to limit delegated redirects to 5 as per https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html. Has been done, can be removed.

[07:15] Martin Sarabura (PTC): https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oslc-core-comment/

[07:15] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): No comments received on public draft.

[07:16] Martin Sarabura (PTC): https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#committeeSpec

[07:17] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Rules are we don't need to wait 7 days as no comments were received.

[07:18] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Concern that no comments were received.

[07:20] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Should we vote for committee specification? Do we have sufficient voting members?

[07:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC): https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oslc-core/members/attendance.php

[07:25] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Process appears to be that we notify Chet of vote to conduct ballot. Then ballot is done electronically.

[07:25] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Martin will submit ballot request to Chet.

[07:26] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Vote on submitting ballot request.

[07:26] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): on majority vote on committee spec

[07:27] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): David seconded.

[07:27] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): +1

[07:27] Harish K (Software AG): +1

[07:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:27] Jad El-khoury (KTH): +1

[07:27] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1

[07:27] Jim Amsden (IBM): +1

[07:27] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Proposal carried.

[07:28] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Action Item: Martin to submit request for majority vote for committee spec to Chet.

[07:31] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Next topic: Statement of use

[07:32] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): TC decides whether a statement of use is valid.

[07:33] Martin Sarabura (PTC): https://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tc-admin-requests

[07:36] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Do we need to have at least one implementation of 3.0 spec capabilities?

[07:37] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim: Statement of use should demonstrate the spec can satisfy the business motivations and use cases.

[07:38] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim: Do we have implementations that show implementability of the spec?

[07:38] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim: Could use some existing 2.0 implementations for part.

[07:39] Nick Crossley (IBM): See https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#dStatementUse

[07:39] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim: We should have at least one implementation of some of the new 3.0 capabilities/features.

[07:40] Nick Crossley (IBM): See also Chet's comments in https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201508/msg00138.html

[07:41] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Do we have any implementations using link headers?

[07:42] Nick Crossley (IBM): re link headers: no implementations that I am aware of

[07:45] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Steve Speicher and Sam Padgett had an Eclipse Lyo implementation for an early 3.0 spec.

[07:45] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): But it hasn't been updated as the 3.0 spec evolved.

[07:46] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Jim: Has looked at code.

[07:47] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Nick: If this was updated, believes this would be a valid statement of use.

[07:49] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Martin: TC member should review 3.0 spec elements not in 2.0 and decide which should be tested to get a valid statement of use.

[07:56] Martin Sarabura (PTC): https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oslc-core-comment/201609/msg00000.html

[07:58] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Martin: TC members should review comment (received 7 mins after we voted) and determine whether they are substantive enough to delay the request for a ballot./

[08:00] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Meeting adjourned.

oslc-core message