Call-in info: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oslc-core/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3688 (access restricted to OASIS members)
Chat room: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/oslc
Issue list: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/oslccore
- Scribe nomination
- Roll call
Approval of Minutes of 14 May 2015
- Next call: 11 June 2015
- Review action items from previous meeting (see below)
Selected issues from the issues list
Issue 9 - Bootstrapping discovery - Is a new header required to refer to a discovery root on any resource or is "/" enough?
Issue 13 - Dialogs final editing - Use ldp:constrainedBy instead of oslc:resourceShape
- If we have time...
Issue 16 - Vocabulary discovery - Consistent with what's in the CCM spec
- Other business
Action items from previous meeting
- Martin to contact OASIS re how best to include non-normative text into normative text
- Jim to contact OASIS re rules for citations
- Committee members should consider how we could merge the Preview and Dialog specification dialog descriptors and be prepared to discuss at next meeting
David Honey (IBM)
Jim Amsden (IBM)
Martin Pain (IBM)
Martin Sarabura (PTC)
Nick Crossley (IBM)
ian green (ibm)
- Martin S - Determine how we can find out which MAY/SHOULD aspects of v2.0 are expected by 2.0 clients.
Chat transcript from room: oslc
ian green (ibm): List of attendees: David Honey (IBM), Harish (SoftwareAG), Jim Amsden (IBM), Martin Pain (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Nick Crossley (IBM), ian green (ibm)
ian green (ibm): proposed to accept minutes. accepted
ian green (ibm): Jim recommending additional calls to cover outstanding items.
ian green (ibm): Discussion about extending calls to 90mins.
ian green (ibm): Agreement that additional informal "working" meetings also desirable. Do these meetings need to be minuted?
ian green (ibm): These additional meetings report back to TC meeting, where any minutes, voting etc. must take place.
ian green (ibm): Same conference line can be used for interim meetings
ian green (ibm): as for TC call.
ian green (ibm): Agenda item: Issue 9 - Bootstrapping discovery.
ian green (ibm): (https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-9)
ian green (ibm): Jim: 2.0/3.0 compatibility has broad implications for 3.0 discovery, which we need to understand before we make proposals for 3.0
ian green (ibm): David: why did we move away from 2.0 discovery?
ian green (ibm): Summary of motivation that 3.0 discovery should be more flexible and dynamic "in style" than 2.0 catalogue.
ian green (ibm): Idea was that service catalogue was perhaps "old fashioned" and that LDP concepts could offer a more modern approach
ian green (ibm): Nick points out that 2.0 spec requires that future versions are compatible.
ian green (ibm): Observation that 3.0 server could potentially provide more than one way to discover services
ian green (ibm): David: could TRS be used to reflect changes in discovery documents
ian green (ibm): Jim: (refocussing) do we want 3.0 to be compatible with 2.0, Nick: and what does compatible mean.
ian green (ibm): Nick: a 2.0 client should work with a 3.0 server
ian green (ibm): Or, do we want compatibility to be easy to achieve, rather than required by the spec.
ian green (ibm): Is such a converter feasible (eg simple query)
ian green (ibm): MartinP: Burden of 2.0 was catalogue, query etc. Desirable for 3.0 to not place such burden on implementors
ian green (ibm): Nick raises the point of oslc:usage which seems to not have a corresponding facility for client to decide which LDPC to use
ian green (ibm): MartinS: 2.0 spec does not REQUIRE anything by way of discovery. Thus 3.0 need not provide 2.0 discovery, and remain compatible.
ian green (ibm): Jim: is this merely legalese?
ian green (ibm): Will we hurt oslc perception by taking this line?
ian green (ibm): DavidH: Are these 2.0 MAYs defacto MUSTs
ian green (ibm): Adapter could offer LDPCs which contain 2.0-like catalogue resources
ian green (ibm): MartinP describes model in which 3.0 exposes a 2.0 facade.
ian green (ibm): Circling back to the statement "what is compatibility"? Do we need to cover all possibilities, or only some subset?
ian green (ibm): No consensus reached on compatibility. Nick suggests taking this to the OSLC steering cttee
ian green (ibm): Jim: are we in a position to vote on this?
ian green (ibm): Jim: we can inform this with an analysis of dependencies that current 3.0 specs/drafts have on 2.0-like services
ian green (ibm): Jim: can't base compatibility on what is hard to implement - needs to be based on need
ian green (ibm): table this discussion; need more concrete position before we can vote
ian green (ibm): Compatibility reqs can be found at: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-10
ian green (ibm): nope, i think that is the wrong link.
ian green (ibm): Nick: we have no record of who is "using" 2.0, so near impossible to assess impact of compatibility loss.
Nick Crossley (IBM): https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-5
ian green (ibm): MartinS: can we solicit feedback from community - perhaps asking specific communities known to be interested in OSLC
ian green (ibm): Next meeting June 11th (90 mins)
ian green (ibm): Meeting adjourned