Event details



Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM)
Steve Speicher (IBM)
Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM), David Green (Tasktop Technologies), Harish K (Software AG), Ian Green (IBM), Jim Conallen (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Samuel Padgett (IBM), Steve Speicher (IBM), John Arwe (IBM)
Nick Crossley (IBM), Martin Pain (IBM)
  • Minutes of 21 August approved unanimously
  • Next TC call will be on 18 September 2014
  • Make Link header a MUST from Resource Preview spec (#6)
  • Move "Displaying a Preview" guidance into separate committee note - section 5.3, except 5.3.6

Original Chat transcript from room: oslc

Chat transcript from room: oslc

2014-09-04 GMT-08:00

Roll Call

[07:04] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Attendees: Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM) David Green (Tasktop Technologies) Harish K (Software AG) ian green jim conallen (IBM) Martin Sarabura (PTC) Samuel Padgett (IBM) Steve Speicher (IBM)

Approval of Minutes 21 Aug

[07:04] Steve Speicher (IBM): Arnaud: suggest to approve, hearing no objections

[07:04] Steve Speicher (IBM): approved


[07:06] Steve Speicher (IBM): SteveS: no update, waiting response when Chet gets back from vacation (which I believe was just 2 days ago)

[07:06] Steve Speicher (IBM): ...will reach out to them

Resource preview

[07:08] Steve Speicher (IBM):

[07:09] Steve Speicher (IBM): SamP: proposal was to originally take it out, removing extra options for discovering it

[07:10] Steve Speicher (IBM): ...Ian raised the point on how it would be discovered in non-RDF sources (resources), so Link header is needed

[07:10] Steve Speicher (IBM): ...John went on to say that it would possibly make sense to up the conformance level to MUST have Link header

[07:11] Steve Speicher (IBM): ...Can use Prefer to optimize out the HEAD + follow Link header for preview

[07:13] Steve Speicher (IBM): MartinS: want to know what the policy to remove the extra hop?

[07:14] John Arwe (IBM): "morning"

[07:15] Steve Speicher (IBM): SteveS: various implementation experience has shown, either pre-fetching or on-demand, still produces a noticeable delay

[07:16] Steve Speicher (IBM): MartinS: believe that with newer applications, the could be built to better deal with this to avoid the slowness

[07:16] jim conallen (IBM): +1

[07:17] Samuel Padgett (IBM): +1

[07:17] ian green: +1

[07:17] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:17] Steve Speicher (IBM): Ian: getting clarity that it would only be a MUST if and only if the resource supports preview

[07:17] Steve Speicher (IBM): +1

[07:17] John Arwe (IBM): +1

[07:17] David Green (Tasktop Technologies): +1 (advisory)

[07:18] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Resolved: make Link header a MUST from Resource Preview spec (#6)

Proposal to move "Displaying a Preview" guidance into separate committee note

[07:18] Samuel Padgett (IBM):

[07:19] Steve Speicher (IBM): SamP: Pasted section in reference, this was taken directly from 2.0 spec and very desktop focus (nothing for mobile), very prescriptive on how the preview should be displayed

[07:20] Steve Speicher (IBM): ...suggest this be in a non-standards track doc

[07:20] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): The correct link to Sam's email is here:

[07:22] Steve Speicher (IBM): JimC: agree that the guidance would be better separate, recently hit a problem with a device trying to render with limited JS

[07:23] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Proposal: move "Displaying a Preview" guidance into separate committee note - section 5.3, except 5.3.6

[07:24] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:24] jim conallen (IBM): +1

[07:24] Samuel Padgett (IBM): +1

[07:24] Steve Speicher (IBM): separate non-standards committee note

[07:24] Steve Speicher (IBM): +1

[07:24] ian green: +1

[07:25] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Resolved: move "Displaying a Preview" guidance into separate committee note - section 5.3, except 5.3.6

Two possible improvements to specifications

[07:26] Steve Speicher (IBM): Martin Pain's note:

[07:37] Steve Speicher (IBM): ACTION: on SteveS to pull together how Shapes and vocabulary should be spec'd, already on some pages such as:

[07:37] Steve Speicher (IBM): Arnaud: Martin's other point is how to make the requirements very clear

[07:37] Steve Speicher (IBM): SteveS: Sam made these changes within the Attachments spec at

[07:40] Steve Speicher (IBM): SteveS: it was very useful to break it down, such as in the LDP spec, to easily align with test suite

[07:41] Steve Speicher (IBM): MartinS: think that most clients will look to support a scenario and want to see if the service provider conforms to the set of features

[07:43] Steve Speicher (IBM): JohnA: gotten to over time, there are 2 distinct audiences: server implementers and clients/users. Most customers are interested in interop, as 2 compliant implementations doesn't imply interop

[07:44] Steve Speicher (IBM): JohnA: find that it is key to have a section/spec to focus on the normal case the enables interop, just need to make sure to write for both audiences

[07:45] Steve Speicher (IBM): Arnaud: W3C WG generally produces a set of documents for a given technology/concept: spec + primer

[07:47] Steve Speicher (IBM): SteveS: also with the growth of simple REST API docs, some of this audience expects to see how to use it quickly with code-level examples

Consider moving CM-Attachments spec to the code TC

[07:50] Steve Speicher (IBM): SamP: solving common problem on attaching "files" to change requests

[07:50] John Arwe (IBM): s/code/core/ ?

[07:51] Steve Speicher (IBM): JimC: arch management, it would be good as well

[07:52] Steve Speicher (IBM): Arnaud: seems like it would make sense to do so

[07:52] John Arwe (IBM): Anamitra has been looking at attachments already - might well have code in the pipe. Please pull him into any of those discussions.

[07:53] Steve Speicher (IBM): Arnaud: what is used beyond containers and non-rdf sources in LDP?

[07:54] Steve Speicher (IBM): SamP: just adds some conventions on how to use LDP concepts

[07:54] John Arwe (IBM): profile?

[07:55] Steve Speicher (IBM): one man's profile is another man's spec

[07:56] John Arwe (IBM): a spec by any other name would be just as un/readable

[07:58] Steve Speicher (IBM): JimC: would we use a different namespace, moving to core

[07:58] John Arwe (IBM): Anamitra is doing same as JimC - was looking at CM

[07:58] Steve Speicher (IBM): JimC: doing some private implementation, not CM now

[08:00] Steve Speicher (IBM): SamP: it is a new term in ChangeMgmt 3.0, so changing namespace should be ok

[08:01] Steve Speicher (IBM): Arnaud: will continue to evaluate this, will get with CCM chair to confirm this

Status update on various work products

[08:02] Steve Speicher (IBM): Arnaud: dialogs spec is now published in OASIS repo

[08:03] Steve Speicher (IBM): Ian: made a little progress on linking guidance, need to compare notes with JimC and ensure we have it

[08:04] Steve Speicher (IBM): ...taking it to update from submission doc from 2.0 and adding into svn

[08:07] Steve Speicher (IBM): Ian: working through various comments on some automation wg calls, still knocking out a few from email

[08:08] Steve Speicher (IBM): JohnA: have an implementor already working on this as well

[08:08] Steve Speicher (IBM): Arnaud: new business? hearing now

Meeting adjourned

Meetings/Telecon2014.09.04 (last edited 2014-09-08 16:47:28 by alehors)