Re: [oslc-domains] Groups - Current summary of QM Spec issues uploaded

["Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>]

Gray,
Perhaps we have a misunderstanding re:
QM and RM specs. Our goal was to migrate the existing QM 2.0 spec to OASIS.
Our goal was not necessarily align the OSLC Domains specs other than following
OASIS formatting and organization. The intent was to make minimal changes
to content in order to avoid introducing incompatibilities and slowing
the standardization process for these mature technologies.

So QM differences in capabilities, MAY,
MUST or SHOULD, and other inconsistencies with RM and CM are fine unless
they have been identified as defects in the QM 2.0 spec. There's no need
to align the specs, and that could introduce the very incompatibilities
we are trying to avoid.



Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
919-525-6575




From:      
 G Bachelor <gray_bachelor@uk.ibm.com>
To:      
 oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:      
 10/17/2018 12:41 PM
Subject:    
   [oslc-domains]
Groups - Current summary of QM Spec issues uploaded
Sent by:    
   <oslc-domains@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Submitter's message
For tomorrows meeting I have summarised the open issues with the QM spec
draft that is on the Github branch B15 - QM - feedback - update 
-- Mr. G Bachelor

Document Name: Current summary of QM Spec issues

---

Description
This summarises the detail feedback that Jad has kindly given - mostly its
to do with inconsistencies across V2.1 cf V2.0 or between QM and say RM
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

---

Submitter: Mr. G Bachelor
Group: OASIS OSLC Lifecycle Integration for Domains (OSLC Domains) TC
Folder: Documents
Date submitted: 2018-10-17 09:41:08