[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: OSLC CORE TC Minutes October 27, 2016
Please note the technical advisory board request will set up a special majority vote, see
https://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tc-admin-requests/committee-specification-ballot-request Scribe
Attendees
Regrets Resolutions
·
Accept the proposal as stated in
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-68 Actions
Chat transcript from room: oslc [07:04] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin will scribe
[07:04] List of attendees: David Honey (Persistent/IBM), Harish K (Software AG), Jad El-khoury (KTH), Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus), Jim Amsden (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Nick
Crossley (IBM) [07:05] Martin Sarabura (PTC):
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-core/Meetings/Telecon2016.10.13
[07:05] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Minutes accepted - just a typo
[07:06] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin's action items not done - continue to next meeting
[07:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC):
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-25
[07:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim to close issue 78
[07:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC): add action item
[07:09] Martin Sarabura (PTC): To main item: Re Mr. Meyer's feedback
[07:10] Jad El-khoury (KTH):
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oslc-core-comment/201609/msg00000.html [07:11] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: OSLC domains are minimally specified in order to make implementation easier
[07:11] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Keep as open. extensible, flexible as possible
[07:12] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Therefore insufficient information in spec to define all constraints in a given implementation
[07:12] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Invented resource shapes as simplification of OWL
[07:12] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Shapes describe resources and support discovery and constrain vocabularies for specific purposes
[07:13] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Servers always free to further extend and constrain the vocabularies
[07:13] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Recommended to, not just "free to"
[07:14] Martin Sarabura (PTC): No standard set of extended properties, cardinalities and data types. There is a way to describe what those extensions are
[07:15] Martin Sarabura (PTC): We can't specify overly-constrained designs for specific purposes
[07:17] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: Isn't this about how to specify enough so the client can be written more easily?
[07:19] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: Doesn't this make client development more expensive?
[07:19] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Delegated dialogs, etc capabilities exist
[07:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: Not so much for integration as for developing a client in a given domain
[07:22] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Can't force other server to specify or use your constraints
[07:23] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Even if constraints not speicified, operations could fail. Better approachh is clearly to use reflection but maybe that's not available for
some tools [07:24] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Historically, initial implementations didn't publish shapes because that was considered a luxury
[07:24] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Over time the importance of shape discovery became more obvious as world became more general
[07:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Could still hard code per server type in near term, later on add reflection
[07:26] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Shapes not 100% solution but surprisingly complete
[07:26] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Shapes can be described by shapes - possible to extend them in a standard way too
[07:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Instance property on the shape makes meta-shapes discoverable
[07:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Puts burden on users to do the discovery, benefit is open world.
[07:29] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: Client developers want a little more constraints than what we are inclined to provide
[07:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Agree that we need not bring this into 3.0
[07:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Other standard property we use is owl:sameas for rdf type definitions
[07:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): and property definitions
[07:31] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Raise action item to write note to describe ibm use of shapes and owl:sameas and use the shapes to inform dynamic client creation
[07:32] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jad: Bit confusing as to intentions of shapes - need explanation of how to use shapes
[07:33] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: General idea for shapes in note that Arthur Ryman wrote for w3c
[07:33] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: In the bibliography for the spec
[07:34] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Broadly in agreement - system is extensible, way to describe constraints, good for now
[07:35] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Tim requesting specific extensions - in theory we could consider putting them in on a case-by-case basis. May run into compatibility issues;
we also should keep in mind that SHACL may eventually get published [07:35] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Long term not sure what's going on with SHACL
[07:36] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Not sure what they come up will be usable by our community.
[07:36] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Shouldn't be in a hurry given the uncertainties with regards to SHACL
[07:37] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Many implementations of resource shapes 2.0, seem to be working.
[07:38] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Plus, controversy and additional time for SHACL indicates risk; leave OSLC shapes as is for now
[07:40] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Invest in OSLC for JS may provide more value by demonstrating best practices
[07:41] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: This is ongoing work, is fine to proceed
[07:43] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jad: Should we respond to email? Jim: Have responded by email, not required to respond further unless somebody on TC feels it is required
[07:43] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: We should encourage Tim to participate on future meetings.
[07:45] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Eg., new type of literal for formatted text seems reasonable
[07:45] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Response would be to wait to see what happens in SHACL
[07:45] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Just not at a point in time where we can assess properly
[07:48] Martin Sarabura (PTC): There is a strong sub-community in SHACL that wants to avoid any UI-related constraints
[07:48] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: We may at some point wish to take up the UI constraints if SHACL chooses to drop it
[07:51] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: Propose that we request publication of Committee specification
[07:51] Nick Crossley (IBM): Seconded
[07:51] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Second
[07:52] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): +1
[07:52] Jim Amsden (IBM): +1
[07:52] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1
[07:52] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1
[07:52] Jad El-khoury (KTH): +1
[07:52] Jim Amsden (IBM): +1
[07:52] Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus): +1
[07:53] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Harish votes in favor as voice vote
[07:53] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Carried
[07:53] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin action item to submit the appropriate paperwork
[07:55] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Response to Tim, Martin to respond once more
[07:55] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Open issues on TRS - 70 and 71. Nick: 68 changes made to the proposal
[07:56] Martin Sarabura (PTC):
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-68
[07:57] Jim Amsden (IBM): Proposal: Accept the proposed resolution
[07:57] Nick Crossley (IBM): Seconded
[07:57] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1
[07:57] Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus): +1
[07:57] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): +1
[07:58] Jad El-khoury (KTH): +1
[07:58] Jim Amsden (IBM): +1
[07:58] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1
[07:58] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Harish voice vote in favor
[07:58] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Carried
[07:59] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim action item to move the verbiage into the spec
[07:59] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Next meeting to discuss 70 and 71
[07:59] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Meeting adjourned
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]