Event details


Thanks to a lot of good online feedback we should be in a position to vote on certain issues, listed below. If new considerations arise during discussion then we will delay voting on that issue, otherwise we will want to register official votes. Please note to see this list you can set up a filter on OSLC CORE, where Label = "Ready for vote". The Label filter is available in the "More" drop-down widget.


  1. Scribe nomination
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of August 6 minutes

  4. Next meeting September 3
  5. Actions from the previous meeting
    • David will write a proposal for the resolution of OSLCCORE-9 for review and potential vote next meeting
    • Nick will write up a scenario describing how to find the component LDPC - i.e., how to determine the usage of a particular LDPC
    • Jim will create a wiki page describing what information is capture in an OSLC2 ServiceProviderCatalog, and what information is available from an LDPC in order to determine the gap.

    • Jim will propose additional LDPC OSLC properties in oder to close the above gap so that the same discovery information is available from either discovery approach
    • Jim will discuss ReSpec ownership and maintenance with Chet.

  6. Discuss and vote on issue 23 - Should a ServiceProviderCatalog or ServiceProvider be an LDPC?

  7. Discuss and vote on issue 29 - Allow for selection dialogs for service providers

  8. Discuss and vote on issue 9 - Bootstrapping discovery

  9. Discuss and vote on issue 15 - Allow client to request different icon sizes for resource preview

  10. Discuss and vote on issue 20 - Service provider should describe domain/scope

  11. Other business

Voting Rights

Held by:








Recording available Play recording

Chat transcript from room: oslc

[07:04] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin volunteers to be scribe

[07:05] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Attendance: Harish (SoftwareAG) Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus) Jim Amsden (IBM) Jim Ruehlin (IBM) Martin Sarabura (PTC)

[07:05] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Not quorum, though we have votes on certain issues

[07:05] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David joined, we have quorum

[07:06] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Minutes from aut 6 meeting

[07:06] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Hearing no objections, declared as passed

[07:07] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David not able to attend Sep 3 meeting

[07:07] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Action items:

[07:07] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David Honey alternate proposal for issue 9

[07:09] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Re wiki page for what information to capture in serviceprovidercatalog

[07:09] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Correction to David's issue - #20, not 9

[07:10] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Re Jim's wiki page, in the discovery specification as part of hte edits to oslc 2.0 compatibility

[07:10] Martin Sarabura (PTC): The changes are all on Jim's branch - waiting to merge in

[07:10] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Waiting on some decisions before branch

[07:11] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Resolve some of these significant issues - these 5 are probably the most significant

[07:11] Martin Sarabura (PTC): New stable version on mainline will incorporate the decisions

[07:11] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Roadmap says we will go to public review in September

[07:12] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Our roadmap is out of date: Martin to update it on our wiki page

[07:13] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Re Jim proposing additional LDPC oslc properties - that's in issue 23

[07:13] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Re Jim discussing ReSpec ownership and maintenance with Chet - Chet is reviewing and will get back to Jim

[07:14] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Issue 23

[07:14] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin has requested defer on this because he is working on user scenarios and they are not yet complete

[07:14] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Problem is, all but 15 rely on 23

[07:15] Martin Sarabura (PTC): So let's start with 15

[07:15] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Also Jim has another issue from yesterday that we could discuss

[07:17] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Issue #32 is the other one - maybe also 31

[07:18] Martin Sarabura (PTC): issue 15

[07:18] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Request icon of different size. Nick has suggested wording change

[07:20] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick's wording accommodates the possibility of scaling down to the requested size - and scaling down gives you better resolution

[07:20] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Do we expect clients to be scaling the icons down?

[07:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Many icons are not scalable depending on file format

[07:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Can both be accommodated? Can the client request preference?

[07:22] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: May discover that they can't once they get the icon

[07:22] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim R: Most clients will likely not want to scale

[07:24] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Note that preference parameters should be registered in an IANA registry

[07:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): LDP has some parameters but we don't know if they have been registered

[07:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: 3 questions: - Is this a question we need to solve? - Is prefer header the way to do it? - What are the values of the property and what should be returned if preference can't be satisfied?

[07:26] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Could be added to compact resource

[07:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC): For backward compatibility we can't return multiple icons - already declared as single valued

[07:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Maybe declare another value: Icons plural

[07:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC): This would add to the standard, is it worth it?

[07:29] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Part of the appeal of OSLC is to enable really nice UI

[07:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Preview/delegated dialogs could do the trick, or just allow for an extension

[07:31] Martin Sarabura (PTC): We could add a note to the preview guidance

[07:32] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Multiple preferences instead of just a single one

[07:32] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Makes the problem less common, but doesn't solve it

[07:33] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Server very likely will have a match, unless server doesn't support icons at all

[07:34] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Danger that we overburden the spec

[07:35] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Another possibility - clause recommended that servers prefer icon sizes of 8, 16, 24, 32 or whatever as SHOULD to reduce variations

[07:35] Martin Sarabura (PTC): then pick a rule from issue 15 then we're done

[07:37] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Seems simple enough

[07:38] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Likely better set would be 16, 24, 32, 48, 64

[07:38] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Update proposal, email vote next week.

[07:40] Martin Sarabura (PTC): OK let's do that

[07:41] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Issue 31

[07:41] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Document management discussion

[07:42] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Constraints and terms, in separate files

[07:43] Martin Sarabura (PTC): needs to be one file

[07:44] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Problem is that normative files are different from the normative files for oslc v3

[07:44] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Proposal: Use one core vocabulary file which merges all these files

[07:45] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Constraint and terms sections link to another multi-part fragment that summarizes the vocabulary in the same namespace in context

[07:47] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Turtle file for that is the one we publish to

[07:48] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Still have constraints and terms section in each spec. In that section we summarize the constraints and terms and properties for that document, then link into the common vocabulary document

[07:49] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Alternative is to take each disparate document and build up the common spec

[07:49] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Not trivial because we need to bring in namespace. Also we're copying stuff

[07:51] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:51] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick has commented on this and seems to agree

[07:52] Martin Sarabura (PTC): The document has to be created anyway since there must be a turtle file for the standard

[07:53] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Don't need a single OSLC document that spans core, config management, change management

[07:54] Martin Sarabura (PTC): We're talking only for core

[07:56] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Don't want to support main file plus all the individual files simply for respec generation

[07:56] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Currently problem reading oslc respec document in Chrome

[07:58] Martin Sarabura (PTC): How about annotating documents so that respec generates the code out of the main file

[07:59] Jim Amsden (IBM): <section id="resources" class="appendix"> <h2>Resource Constraints</h2> <section id="compactShape"> <h2 id="resourceCompact">Resource: Compact</h2> <div title='Shape for oslc_cm:Compact' data-include='shapes/Compact-shape.ttl' data-oninclude='shapeToSpec' data-include-sync='true' data-include-replace='true' data-include-format='html'></div> </section> <section id="previewShape"> <h2 id="resourcePreview">Resource: Preview</h2> <div title='Shape for oslc_cm:Preview' data-include='shapes/Preview-shape.ttl' data-oninclude='shapeToSpec' data-include-sync='true' data-include-replace='true' data-include-format='html'></div> </section> </section>

[08:00] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Seems like a good approach.

[08:01] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Propose this approach on issue, if acceptable then vote not required since it would look the same

[08:02] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Respec is pretty complicated javascript

[08:03] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Not urgent - nice to have for common review, only whether it will be duplicated to the individual sections or not

[08:03] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Let's proceed with this plan

[08:04] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Issue 32

[08:04] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[08:05] Martin Sarabura (PTC): URL for creation factory is an ldpc for oslc v3

[08:06] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Link header uses creationType, not resourceType - should we not call it resourceType?

[08:06] Martin Sarabura (PTC): resourceType used in dialog resource, not in link headers

[08:07] Martin Sarabura (PTC): There is a rel=type on a link header that tells you whether it is an ldp container or not

[08:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC): creationType is the type of thing you can create

[08:09] Martin Sarabura (PTC): No issue that resourceType shows up in vocab as both header and content - in both cases the value is a shape

[08:10] David Honey (IBM): +1

[08:10] Harish (SoftwareAG): +1

[08:10] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[08:10] Jim Amsden (IBM): +

[08:11] Martin Sarabura (PTC): motion passed

[08:11] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Issue 9 - bootstrapping discovery

[08:12] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[08:15] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Using / could get cluttered up - there are many roots

[08:16] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Similarly there could be many home pages - just moved the problem

[08:18] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Hard to mandate, maybe enough to recommend server publish from a reasonable root uri

[08:19] Martin Sarabura (PTC): One that is easiest enough to guess

[08:20] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin P proposing new header to link from "home page" to LDPCs

[08:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC): What is the "home page"?

[08:22] Martin Sarabura (PTC): There may be security implications: Expose URL that you shouldn't even know about

[08:22] Martin Sarabura (PTC): We may get into more trouble than we can hope to solve

[08:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Separate vote on this issue - proposal is to go with #1 - leave it as it is

[08:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): I will set up an electronic vote for this

[08:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Issue 29

[08:26] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[08:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Allow for selection dialogs for serviceproviders

[08:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Scenario: LDPC for serviceprovidercatalog has resourceType of ServiceProvidres

[08:29] Martin Sarabura (PTC): If they're not already LDPCs then options wouldn't necessarily return those link headers

[08:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Similarly a ServiceProvider, if it's an LDPC, could expose ability to select Services via selection dialog

[08:32] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Can tentatively close this pending resolution on issue 23

[08:32] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Because it comes automatically if we accept the proposal in 23

[08:34] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Meeting adjourned

Meetings/Telecon2015.08.20 (last edited 2015-08-20 22:06:20 by sarabura)