Event details


Action items from previous meeting



Martin Sarabura (PTC)


Martin Pain (IBM)


Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM) David Honey (IBM) Harish (SoftwareAG) ian green (ibm) Jim Amsden (IBM) Martin Pain (IBM) Martin Sarabura (PTC) Nick Crossley (IBM) Deric Merino (PTC)




Chat transcript from room: oslc

Martin Pain (IBM): Scribe: Martin Pain

Martin Pain (IBM): Present: Arnaud J Le Hors (IBM) David Honey (IBM) Harish (SoftwareAG) ian green (ibm) Jim Amsden (IBM) Martin Pain (IBM) Martin Sarabura (PTC) Nick Crossley (IBM)

Martin Pain (IBM): Approval of last meeting's minutes:

Martin Pain (IBM): Chair noted that resolutions had been passed witouth quorum. No objections. Minutes approved.

Martin Pain (IBM): Agenda for this meeting:

Martin Pain (IBM): Review action items from previous meeting

Martin Pain (IBM): All action issues addressed except "Nick to raise an issue regarding more flexibility on icon size in resource preview" (due to issues with the issues system) - will do that now

Martin Pain (IBM): Issues list:

Martin Pain (IBM): Next item: Other open questions from Jim's email

Martin Pain (IBM):

Martin Pain (IBM): Jim's happy to accept editor role on all documents. Would be happy for others to step up for any documents if they would like to.

Martin Pain (IBM): Martin S invited members to look at the documents list and feed back, to keep this moving forward

Martin Pain (IBM): Question: How do we review potential changes? Attach a diff to the ticket before checking in, or check in to version control?

Martin Pain (IBM): Martin S suggests checking it in, as long as we make sure it's reviewed

Martin Pain (IBM): Martin P agrees happy to check in, if we have a reasonable degree of confidence in it, otherwise we could check in to a branch for review.

Martin Pain (IBM): Very high confidence changes (e.g. minor changes) check in straight onto trunk, without a ticket. If you're subscribed you should see the changes in email. Anything which needs more information will have an issue ticket raised and checked into a branch.

Martin Pain (IBM): Next item: On April 2 we discussed a new Delegated UI Guidance Note - probably should start even if not included in initial documents

Martin Pain (IBM): Will raise it as an issue ticket

Martin Pain (IBM): What's the lifecycle of notes? Can we update them over time as we learn?

Martin Pain (IBM): We believe it's the same

Martin Pain (IBM): We can include other information outside the standards process elsewhere, e.g. on the wikis.

Martin Pain (IBM): Next item: Review issues list

Martin Pain (IBM): OSLCCORE-6 How does POST to an LDPC that supports multiple creationTypes indicate which resource to create?

Martin Pain (IBM):

Nick Crossley (IBM): I am having difficulty hearing several people in today's conversation - many are breaking up - though it does seem better right now

Martin Pain (IBM): Do we have examples/scenarios where we need multiple creationTypes for non-RDF sources? You can always have an LDPC for each type, which avoids the issue.

Martin Pain (IBM): Action item: To update the issue

Martin Pain (IBM): Martin P: creationType should point to an RDF class, constrainedBy to a resource shape. So knowing which creationType you want to create is not a problem. (But tying which constraint is for which type is)

Martin Pain (IBM): Arnaud: constrainedBy is not fully fleshed-out in LDP, so not surprised there are difficulties, but how we go about that is not answered in LDP today

Martin Pain (IBM): Are the creationtypes strict or loose? Does it just have to have one of them, or can it not have any from the list?

Martin Pain (IBM): Suggestion that is a domain-specific question, not something that can be addressed by core

Martin Pain (IBM): Suggestion that we might be able to do somethign in core that prevents duplicationbetween domains

Martin Pain (IBM): We ought to avoid heading off in some direction that is incompatible with W3C shapes

Martin Pain (IBM): We should be as vague as LDP was in their constrainedBy definition

Martin Pain (IBM): To summarise: In LDP, you can POSt to an LDPC to create a resource, and the server can constrain what you can create. And all creationType does is give a URL that further contraints the shape of what you're posting. So if you take that type off whether that create succeeds or not is defined by LDP.

Martin Pain (IBM): Might be a non-issue due to mixing up creationType and constrainedBy. Jim to put current position in ticket.

Martin Pain (IBM): Running out of time: Any other business?

Martin Pain (IBM): Meeting adjourned

Meetings/Telecon2015.04.30 (last edited 2015-05-01 16:30:01 by sarabura)