- Roll Call
- Scribe nomination
Review minutes of previous meeting at https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-ccm/Meetings/Telecon2017.01.12
- Change Management issues
- Configuration Management issues
- Any other business
Attendees: Jim Amsden (IBM), Nick Crossley (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC)
Edited chat transcript from room: oslc-ccm 2017-01-26 GMT-08:00
[07:07] Jim Amsden (IBM): Jim scribe
[07:07] Nick Crossley (IBM): Review previous minutes at https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-ccm/Meetings/Telecon2017.01.12
[07:08] Jim Amsden (IBM): Previous minutes approved
[07:08] Jim Amsden (IBM): action to send summary of remaining CM open issues
[07:10] Jim Amsden (IBM): CM open issues action done, in issue https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCCM-12
[07:10] Jim Amsden (IBM): Nick has data for link type review from IBM, arising from issue 28, but still needs to summarize. Action is still pending
[07:13] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Action: Martin will review remaining CM issues and suggest priorities and next steps, as per email https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oslc-ccm/email/archives/201701/msg00011.html
[07:16] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: CM and CCM are separate work products and can go through the OASIS lifecycle independently
[07:19] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Do we want to establish a target roadmap schedule for CM and CCM
[07:19] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Action: Nick will update the config mgmt roadmap on the Wiki.
[07:20] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Action: Jim to update the CM roadmap, it is very out of date
[07:21] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCCM-35 should be moved to config management
[07:23] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Nick suggests that proposal 2 seems ok. Can use the prefer header to control what the client gets
[07:24] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: The issue is that the LDPC to create a stream does not by itself provide a resource shape, so how does a client know what to POST?
[07:25] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Nick suggests that a creation factory and LDPC could be strongly related, LDPCs could be the creation factories, and have a creationShape property.
[07:27] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Since there's no requirement in CCM to support OSLC query, there's no need for a query shape on this LDPC
[07:27] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: at least not per stream
[07:28] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: CCM server could offer query, but doesn't need to be separate per baseline/stream
[07:29] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: components could have a large number of members. Clients might be only interested in a subset
[07:29] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: some kind of query mechanism might be useful to select these subsets to reduce overhead
[07:30] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: not an issue when getting a creation shape.
[07:30] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: selected properties and/or prefer header can be used
[07:32] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: opens the question for OSLC core to provide some means of querying LDPC
[07:38] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: 1st proposal on issue 35: use approach 2 provided in the description, and recommend CCM providers support selective properties on these LDPC resources
[07:39] Jim Amsden (IBM)6: Prefer selected properties over LDP Prefer headers as this will work better for existing OSLC 2.0 clients
[07:41] Jim Amsden (IBM)11: OSLC selective properties only specifies the properties, there's no where clause
[07:42] Jim Amsden (IBM)11: selective properties could for example avoid getting the members of a large LDPC
[07:43] Jim Amsden (IBM)11: OSLC selective properties is not the same as the select clause of an OSLC query.
[07:44] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Use oslc.properties (see https://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OSLCCoreSpecQuery#oslc_select) or Prefer header.
[07:49] Nick Crossley (IBM): Action: Nick to write a revised proposal for issue 35, adding the resource shape to the two LDPCs and that statement that the Prefer header SHOULD be supported as per LDP standard, and that selective properties MAY be supported, as ways to avoid needing to get the LDPC members while getting the creation shape.
[07:52] Nick Crossley (IBM): No other business.
[07:53] Nick Crossley (IBM): Meeting adjourned