Meetings/Telecon2014.06.12

Event details

Agenda

Minutes

Chair
Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM)
Scribe
Harish Krishnaswamy (Software AG)
Attendees
Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM), Harish K (Software AG), Jim Conallen (IBM), John Arwe (IBM), Nick Crossley (IBM), Sam Padgett (IBM), Steve Speicher (IBM), Martin Pain (IBM)
Resolutions
  • Minutes of 29 May approved unanimously
  • Next TC call will be on 26 June 2014
  • Align UI preview sizing with Dialog Resizing, allowing to specify both the with and height
  • Change spec to refer to CSS length units (whatever CSS supports), with a proper reference to the REC CSS (rather than the CR draft)
  • Introduce a new HTTP header for configuration context: Configuration-Context
Actions
  • Nick to investigate what it takes to define HTTP context header, whether an RFC is required or not

Original Chat transcript from room: oslc

Chat transcript from room: oslc

2014-06-12 GMT-08:00

Roll Call

[07:07] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Roll call: Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM) Harish K (Software AG) jim conallen (IBM) John Arwe (IBM) Martin Pain (IBM) Nick Crossley (IBM) Sam Padgett (IBM) Steve Speicher (IBM)

Approval of May 29 Minutes

[07:07] Harish K (Software AG): Approval of minutes of last meeting : No objections. Approved.

Next meeting

[07:08] Harish K (Software AG): Next meeting - Jun 26.

Update on LDP

[07:10] Harish K (Software AG): Update on LDP core spec to be presented as a candidate recommendation.

[07:11] Harish K (Software AG): Spec to be sent to be published. Candidate recommendation spec will have links to test suite.

[07:13] Harish K (Software AG): LDP Paging - Discussion still ongoing on both public/workgroup mailing lists. Timeframe still uncertain for getting this to Done.

[07:16] Harish K (Software AG): Discussion needed sometime on what this means for OSLC.

[07:19] Harish K (Software AG): It may be a while till we may see the LDP Patch document - this is still WIP.

Namespaces

[07:22] Harish K (Software AG): OASIS not comfortable with our decision to stay with open-services.net.

Proposal: Preview sizing

[07:23] Sam Padgett (IBM): https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oslc-core/email/archives/201405/msg00034.html

[07:27] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Proposed: align UI preview sizing with Dialog Resizing, allowing to specify both the with and height

[07:27] Steve Speicher (IBM): +1

[07:28] John Arwe (IBM): +1

[07:28] Steve Speicher (IBM): (both wiDth and height)

[07:28] Nick Crossley (IBM): Agreed

[07:28] Harish K (Software AG): No objections. Unanimously agreed.

[07:28] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Resolved: align UI preview sizing with Dialog Resizing, allowing to specify both the with and height

UI preview relative length units

[07:28] Sam Padgett (IBM): https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oslc-core/email/archives/201405/msg00033.html

[07:30] Harish K (Software AG): OSLC 2.0 Core UI Preview spec and W3C differ on units

[07:32] John Arwe (IBM): FWIW, I forwarded this to the UI folks in my part of IBM, no feedback from them yet

[07:32] Harish K (Software AG): why do we need relative lengths?

[07:36] Harish K (Software AG): the implementations are pragmatic - easier to understand

[07:38] Harish K (Software AG): proposal (Sam Padgett): Remove the relative length requirement. Update the references

[07:39] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Proposed: change spec to refer to CSS length units (whatever CSS supports), with a proper reference to the REC CSS (rather than the CR draft)

[07:39] Steve Speicher (IBM): +1

[07:39] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1

[07:39] Martin Pain (IBM): +1

[07:39] Sam Padgett (IBM): +1

[07:39] John Arwe (IBM): +1 ... any feedback I get from our UI folks later I'll get on the list

[07:40] Harish K (Software AG): No objections. Approved.

[07:40] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Resolved: change spec to refer to CSS length units (whatever CSS supports), with a proper reference to the REC CSS (rather than the CR draft)

[07:40] Harish K (Software AG): Next Topic: Choice for Configuration context request header

Configuration Context Header

[07:41] Nick Crossley (IBM): On the config HDR - I was waiting resolution of the discussion between John and Ian

[07:41] Harish K (Software AG): https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oslc-core/email/archives/201406/msg00004.html

[07:46] Harish K (Software AG): Considering the use of a separate header

[07:47] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Proposed: introduce a new HTTP header for configuration context

[07:48] Harish K (Software AG): what do we call it?

[07:48] Steve Speicher (IBM): Content-Type is typically an example as I see it

[07:48] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Proposed: introduce a new HTTP header for configuration context: Config-Context

[07:49] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Proposed: introduce a new HTTP header for configuration context: Configuration-Context

[07:49] John Arwe (IBM): +1

[07:50] Harish K (Software AG): Approved. No objections.

[07:50] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Resolved: introduce a new HTTP header for configuration context: Configuration-Context

[07:50] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Action to Nick to investigate what it takes, whether an RFC is required or not

[07:57] Martin Pain (IBM): I've got to go now

Paging

[07:57] Harish K (Software AG): Discussion on Paging - use cases which leverage paging and scenarios where client is not equipped to handle very large data

[07:58] John Arwe (IBM): Another use case is when the client "needs" the data sorted, and the server can do that server-side. As currently spec'd the client would still need to sort each page's content, but then it could just merge the now-sorted pages.

[07:59] John Arwe (IBM): ...It would be more appealing in cases where both have more control over representations (so it's beyond pure-RDF), which is actually the case I see in practice.

Adjourned

Meetings/Telecon2014.06.12 (last edited 2014-06-17 16:45:25 by alehors)