- Andrew Berezovskyi (KTH)
- Jim Amsden (IBM)
- Martin Sarabura (PTC)
- Nick Crossley (IBM)
- Jim to review the Automation spec, see where it is and why it was abandoned
- Jim to merge issue 178 into the core spec
Chat transcript from room: oslc
[14:16] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick will scribe
[14:16] Martin Sarabura: https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-core/Meetings/Telecon2018.08.30
[14:17] Nick Crossley (IBM): Minutes approved
[14:17] Nick Crossley (IBM): There was discussion abut the state of, and dependencies on, the OSLC Automation spec.
[14:18] Jim Amsden: Actions was deferred from Core, find where this was done and why Automation was never implemented or completed Configuration Management uses vocabulary from Automation We need to move Automation through the oslc-domains TC to standardization
for Config Management we need to determine if that requires Actions to be migrated and completed too if Automation depends on it.
[14:18] Nick Crossley (IBM): OSLC Configuration Management depends on several vocabulary terms and shapes from Automation, including one (oslc:progress) that is not win the current draft Automation vocabulary.
[14:24] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim suggested that config mgmt could create its own terms for the long-running operations, and make those subproperties of automation properties in the future, if automation were ever to return.
[14:25] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick didn't really want to do that, since the long-running or async operations in config mgmt are quite general, and also because full use of subproperties would require a degree of inferencing (at least RDFS), which Nick was reluctant
[14:25] Nick Crossley (IBM): Andrew also expressed interest in having Actions/Automation terms defined.
[14:25] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim pointed out the lack of interest in completing Automation, and the lack of an editor.
[14:26] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim will do some research into the state of those past efforts, and what the last activities were.
[14:27] Nick Crossley (IBM): This would involve looking at the late Automation TC, what it did, and why it was abandoned.
[14:29] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick pointed out that most of the automation terms used by config mgmt were defined in the existing open-services.net 2.0 spec; however, there is at least one term that was not (as noted above - oslc_auto:progress). Having OSLC
Configuration Management depend on open-services specs was previously deemed acceptable.
[14:31] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: it is also important to note that IBM has several implementations of the draft Configuration Management spec in the field already, and those implementations use this Automation vocabulary.
[14:33] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: what if we moved Actions back into Core? And did some research into the overlap between activities and MQTT? And change Automation to describe long running operations?
[14:34] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: then Config Mgmt would have the vocabulary it needed. It would narrow the scope of Automation to just what we need for config mgmt and similar specs with long running or async operations - without the need to define how to
create or start arbitrary long running ops.
[14:36] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick and Jim agreed this approach would work - but would require some effort.
[14:37] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: what if we left things as they are? Would depending on open-services.net be a bad thing or not?
[14:37] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: would implementers complain about relying on an incomplete spec?
[14:37] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: Automation 2.0 is complete.
[14:41] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: we could run Automation through the OASIS TC process and add the one missing term, but I'm reluctant to go to that effort for a spec that might never get to OASIS Standard level because there would be no implementations.
[14:42] Nick Crossley (IBM): Action: Nick to raise issue about dependency from Configuration Management on Automation, and the missing progress term.
[14:42] Martin Sarabura: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-178 - Jim to merge into core spec
[14:43] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: not yet done.
[14:44] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: learning React.
[14:45] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin: there may be some issues in the use of React.
[14:47] Martin Sarabura: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-179
[14:50] Nick Crossley (IBM): Discussions about query (issue 179, and the overlap between oslc.properties and oslc.select) will be held over until David is available.
[14:51] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: progress on TRS is being made, but not yet ready for review.
[14:53] Nick Crossley (IBM): No other business (other than discussions about the behavior of cats).
[14:53] Nick Crossley (IBM): Meeting adjourned.
Dr. Martin Sarabura
Technical Fellow, Office of Research & Architecture
+1 (519) 502-4819