Event details



Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM)
Nick Crossley (IBM)
Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM), David Green (Tasktop Technologies), Didier Simoneau (DS), Harish (Software AG), Ian Green (IBM), Jim Conallen (IBM), Martin Pain (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Nick Crossley, (IBM) Samuel Padgett (IBM), Steve Speicher (IBM)
  • Minutes of 16 October approved unanimously

Chat transcript from room: oslc 2014-11-13 GMT-08:00

[06:59] anonymous morphed into Didier Simoneau (DS)

[06:59] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM)1 morphed into Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM)

[07:00] Martin Sarabura (PTC): looks like I'll have to call in again - phone problems

[07:00] anonymous morphed into jim conallen (IBM)

[07:00] anonymous1 morphed into Steve Speicher (IBM)

[07:03] Harish (Software AG): i'm having problems joining the call too.. trying now

[07:04] Steve Speicher (IBM): (hears jim and nick each take a step back)

[07:04] anonymous morphed into ian green

[07:05] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick scribing

Roll Call

[07:05] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Roll Call: Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM) David Green (Tasktop Technologies) Didier Simoneau (DS) Harish (Software AG) ian green jim conallen (IBM) Martin Pain (IBM) Martin Sarabura (PTC) Nick Crossley (IBM) Samuel Padgett (IBM) Steve Speicher (IBM)

[07:07] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: haven’t had a call in a while, and will not for a few weeks, so need to maintain momentum - thanks to everyone for joining

Approval of minutes of 16 October 2014

[07:07] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud proposes approval of minutes of previous meeting

[07:07] Nick Crossley (IBM): No objections - minutes approved.

[07:08] Nick Crossley (IBM): Next call Dec 11


[07:09] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: Start discussion about oslc:archived

[07:10] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: Bill had asked if we wanted to limit this to a boolean, rather than having a enumeration of possible states

[07:10] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: there has been some discussion on the email list about this

[07:11] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: yes, we have reached out to the mailing list to get the opinion of those not in the meetings.

[07:12] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: some of the possible 'states' such as lack of access, resource missing or deleted, etc., could be handled by normal http response codes

[07:13] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: there has been some discussion between Lonnie and Edward on the email list - do many tools have this 'not totally there' state that would be expressed by the proposed oslc:archived property?

[07:14] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: At least some Rational tools do. And of course, the property is optional, so tools that have no such concept can omit the property

[07:15] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin S: PTC Integrity does allow true deletion of resources.

[07:15] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin S: Resources can also be removed and later restored - this is not quite the same as archived

[07:16] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: asks Martin if such links to such removed and restored resources are kept

[07:17] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin S: links are removed when the resource is removed

[07:18] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: has asked for clarification on Lonnie/Edward's email discussion

[07:19] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: cannot close on this today without participation from Lonnie & Edward

[07:19] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: will chase up to try to get to closure - but we see no such for this in the next two weeks

[07:21] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: there should be documentation about the expected use and side effects of the 'archived' state - what happens to links, what happens to dependent resources, etc.

[07:21] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: yes - we expect some discussion in the Change Management group about usage

[07:22] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: we should also prompt Bill for further comment

[07:22] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: have already done so!

Status Update

[07:22] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: global status update

[07:23] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: we have a set of documents in the works, but there does not seems to be much recent progress - so let's go through the list to see where they are

[07:24] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin P: Automation spec. 2.1 closing a few remaining issues and can then push into finalization, and Actions 2.0

[07:24] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: with what timeframe?

[07:25] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin P: hoping no more than 2 weeks

[07:25] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin: Automation 3: main goals to improve readability, usability, and make sure it applies to Systems Engineering

[07:26] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: notes that the above is covered by Automation TC, ad does not really need to be covered here

[07:27] Steve Speicher (IBM): Resource Preview spec draft:

[07:27] Nick Crossley (IBM): Sam: Resource preview - needs update to match Steve's respect template - no blocking issues other than Sam's time

[07:28] Nick Crossley (IBM): Sam: Question as to whether or not to merge preview and dialogs

[07:29] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve agreed they should be merged - with common resize behavior

[07:30] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: is what we have on the dialogs good enough? Should we deprecate window name, ... - talking to other experts in this area (mobile, embedded experience, etc.)

[07:30] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: learned a lot - vendors not yet fully aligned - so best to continue with what we have (post message)

[07:31] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: dialogs not a common idiom for mobile

[07:32] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: dialogs not common for desktop apps either

[07:34] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: no progress on config mgmt. context header - still waiting for resolution of some TRS feed issues

[07:34] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: want to see some progress here - it has been in waiting mode for a while

[07:34] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: agreed - hope to see progress in next 2-3 weeks

[07:36] Nick Crossley (IBM): Sam: no change to Attachments status

[07:37] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: Core: overview document - thinking through it, updating pictures, etc.

[07:38] Nick Crossley (IBM): Ian: Spent about an hour or so on converting Linking Guidance doc from to ReSpec

[07:40] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: pick a couple of people (Sam & Steve?) to write some proposals for Core 3.0, mark points for discussion - something for people to throw darts at

[07:42] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: reminder that mail goal for this TC is to take work from, and evolve it to be based on W3C LDP and later W3C Shapes

[07:42] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: LDP should be done in a couple of months

[07:44] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: Shapes just started, and will not be an easy group - has several parties, some lobbying for their different preferred solutions

[07:45] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: first meeting went better than I had feared, but still a long way to go

[07:45] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: can base first OASIS version of Core on LDP and Paging, but Shapes probably won't be ready, so we may need to stick with OSLC shapes as they are

[07:46] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: would like solid Core 3.0 drafts that we can use as the basis for discussion at the start of 2015

[07:47] Nick Crossley (IBM): Steve: we do not have to get everything in the first wave of specs - we'll be set up to use an incremental model

[07:48] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: we do not have to make the first version have too many changes from - there's value in just having a spec released via OASIS

[07:49] Steve Speicher (IBM): +1, let's do it

Other Business

[07:49] Nick Crossley (IBM): Arnaud: any other business?

[07:49] ian green: thanks Arnaud

[07:49] Nick Crossley (IBM): None - so meeting adjourned

Meeting Adjourned

Meetings/Telecon2014.11.13 (last edited 2014-11-13 16:18:48 by ndjc)