Event details



chat transcript


Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM), Steve Speicher (IBM)


Martin Sarabura (PTC)


Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM) Arthur Ryman (IBM) David Green (Tasktop Technologies) Harish (Software AG) Martin Pain (IBM) Martin Sarabura (PTC) Samuel Padgett (IBM) Steve Speicher (IBM)





Roll Call

[07:09] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): roll call: Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM) Arthur Ryman (IBM) David Green (Tasktop Technologies) Harish (Software AG) Martin Pain (IBM) Martin Sarabura (PTC) Samuel Padgett (IBM) Steve Speicher (IBM)

Approval of Minutes of 8 January 2015

[07:10] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Approval of minutes from previous meeting

[07:10] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM):

Next Call

[07:11] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Next call Feb 5

Chairmanship change

[07:13] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Request for volunteers sent out, Steve responded, support indicated

[07:13] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Co-chair? Workload not huge

[07:14] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Encourage co-chair as substitute

[07:14] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Proposed: Elect Steve Speicher as new chair

[07:14] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Any other nominations for chair?

[07:15] Samuel Padgett (IBM): +1

[07:15] Harish (Software AG): +1 to Steve

[07:15] David Green (Tasktop Technologies): +1

[07:15] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Vote for Steve S as chair:

[07:15] Steve Speicher (IBM): +1

[07:15] Arthur Ryman (IBM): +1

[07:15] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:15] David Green (Tasktop Technologies): +1

[07:15] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): Resolved: Elect Steve Speicher as new chair

[07:15] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Declare accepted

[07:16] Harish (Software AG): Thanks to Arnaud for his leadership thus far

[07:18] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin considering co-chair, need to work out details on my side

Review Ian's comments on Attachments document

[07:19] Steve Speicher (IBM):

[07:20] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Sam: Many points resolved

[07:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC): To attach an RDF resource - is that still an LDP-NR?

[07:22] Martin Sarabura (PTC): LDP 1.0 spec makes distinction between R and NR.

[07:23] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Steve: Left as implementation dependent - not baked into spec

[07:23] Samuel Padgett (IBM): - Section

[07:24] David Green (Tasktop Technologies): Something has come up and I have to drop. Will rejoin later if possible.

[07:24] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Steve: Creating a problem we don't really have?

[07:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): How do you know it was treated as a file? Link header will tell you what it is - what behavior you will get

[07:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Use case: How to attach a bug report that happens to be RDF?

[07:26] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Link header can specify that it is an LDP-NR

[07:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Containers have similar use case - looks like a container but does not act like one

[07:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Will clarify spec...

[07:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Cardinality between container and resource

[07:29] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Use case: Multiple fields to carry attachments

[07:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Eg., log file attachments, plus screen shots, plus parameters, etc

[07:31] Martin Sarabura (PTC): RTC one work item container that's global, scoped to different project areas

[07:31] Martin Sarabura (PTC): One container associated with all work items

[07:32] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Don't have enough information to really decide - but having the restriction is likely going to lead to complaints. Maybe solicit more feedback?

[07:33] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Sam leaning towards leaving it open - non-normative sections could provide some examples

[07:33] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Steve: Propose leaving it to be open (more than one cardinality)

[07:34] Samuel Padgett (IBM): +1

[07:34] Steve Speicher (IBM): +1

[07:34] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:34] Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM): +1

[07:34] Martin Pain (IBM): +1

[07:35] Arthur Ryman (IBM): +0

[07:35] Harish (Software AG): +1

[07:35] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Passed

[07:36] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Sam: One more item - servers that support attachments must be at least LDP 1.0 servers. Remove "at least" so that it be exactly 1.0?

[07:37] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Can subsequent versions create problems with conformance?

[07:37] Martin Sarabura (PTC): If remove "at least" then must reissue the attachments spec

[07:38] Steve Speicher (IBM): "Attachment servers MUST be a LDP 1.0 conformant servers or subsequent compatible versions"

[07:40] Martin Sarabura (PTC): No mechanism to indicate conformance of server when new version released - at least not yet. Only 1.0 so far

[07:41] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Will be years before we have a problem...

[07:42] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Safe to say must be 1.0

[07:42] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Sam: Examples sandwiched between normative sections

[07:43] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Intent is to have examples interspersed?

[07:44] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Harder to read when non-normative interspersed - use primer for non-normative examples

[07:45] Martin Sarabura (PTC): When spec is relatively simple, not so much need for a primer

[07:45] David Green (Tasktop Technologies): I'm back

[07:45] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Recommendation: Examples in header to motivate the normative content

[07:46] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Not necessarily a full primer, but enough to get the reader going

[07:47] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Sam: Makes sense - are there too many examples?

[07:48] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Is there significant overlap that can be eliminated? Probably not - where there is overlap it's hard to get rid of because they're focusing on different aspects

[07:49] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Perhaps move 8.3 to beginning, move other examples later

[07:50] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Sam: Enough feedback to continue

Core 3.0 Overview feedback

[07:51] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Steve: Couple of comments from Lonnie re terminology, oslc server

[07:52] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Propose leaving it as is?

[07:52] Steve Speicher (IBM):

[07:53] Martin Sarabura (PTC): For now we can leave as is - no objections at this point

[07:54] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Use a UML-compliant diagram? Not everyone speaks UML and the intent was to convey a simple message.

[07:54] Martin Sarabura (PTC): What do the arrows imply?

[07:54] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Steve: Either extension or dependency - kind of overloaded

[07:55] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Mostly dependency

[07:55] Martin Sarabura (PTC): It's a somewhat informal diagram.

[07:56] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Leave as is

Resource Shapes

[07:56] Martin Sarabura (PTC): What to do with Resource Shapes - Arthur to talk to Arnaud

Spec updates

[07:57] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Discovery 3, compatibility with 2.0, no update

[07:58] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin P: Action spec ready

[07:59] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Overview and resource preview? Sam: Resource preview probably ready for review

[07:59] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Sam: Need a diagram but otherwise in good shape

[07:59] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Delegated dialogs: No changes

Other business

[08:00] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Steve will be at InterConnect end of Feb

[08:00] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Couple of OSLC events, one Saturday before, maybe part of open technology summit

[08:01] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Panel on Tuesday

Meeting ends

Meetings/Telecon2015.01.22 (last edited 2015-02-06 14:36:07 by sspeiche)