Event details


  1. Scribe nomination
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of August 20 minutes

  4. Next meeting September 17
  5. Actions from the previous meeting
    • Martin S to update proposed roadmap for publication and acceptance as an OASIS standard
    • Jim A to update proposal for issue 15 based on today's discussion
    • Martin S to set up electronic vote to accept recommendation #1 on issue 9
  6. Discuss and vote on issue 23 - Should a ServiceProviderCatalog or ServiceProvider be an LDPC?

  7. Other issues that are ready for a vote.
  8. Other business

Voting Rights

Held by:








Chat transcript from room: oslc

[07:06] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick to scribe

[07:06] List of attendees: Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus), Jim Amsden (IBM), Martin Pain (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Nick Crossley (IBM)

[07:06] Nick Crossley (IBM): Minutes of previous meeting; approved

[07:07] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:07] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin: updated spec road map - aggressive schedule to get documents ready

[07:08] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin: action from last meeting: update issue 15: Jim updated the proposal

[07:08] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin: reissued call for votes for issue 9

[07:10] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:11] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: we should consider .well-known and Void vocab as an existing standard for finding starting points

[07:13] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: We already have some use of Void terms in our OSLC work

[07:13] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: Should we say that OSLC servers SHOULD use .well-known and Void?

[07:14] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: asks for volunteers to write a proposal

[07:14] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: would like to do this, but currently very short of time

[07:15] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick will write an alternative proposal

[07:16] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: will aim to do this before next meeting

[07:17] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:18] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: issue 23. Position well-defined in recent email exchanges between Jim and Martin P. Need to go through examples and scenarios.

[07:20] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: Has read through Martin P.'s wiki page, but had some difficulty following it. Suggests we posit that service provider catalogs, service providers and service resources are all of type ldp:Container, and see if that works - if so, we are done. If not, see what breaks.

[07:20] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin: one person to follow that idea from the point of view of a server, a different person follow what a client might do with this approach

[07:22] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: or 4 people doing different combinations, or 2 people alternating - but agree with the general idea that this would test different assumptions that readers might make

[07:27] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: thinks the approach does work, with some concerns about representation, since OSLC 2 spec requires oslc:Service resources to be inline in the oslc:ServiceProvider

[07:28] Nick Crossley (IBM): Client compatibility does not mean that the two discovery approaches must be isomorphic. OSLC 2 discovery may provide more info than v3.

[07:29] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: there are other issues marked ready for vote. Concerns that he is not making editing progress because issues are not getting resolved - would like issues voted and resolved.

[07:30] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: would like to queue up more issues for email vote.

[07:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Other issues ready for vote: 29, 15, 20

[07:30] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: had to drop from call.

[07:31] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:34] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin: issue 29 pretty straightforward? Just state that provision of selection dialogs is a possibility.

[07:34] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin p: do we want to change the shapes of discovery resources at all?

[07:35] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: I think we do want to publish the machine readable shapes now we have them, so there is minimal extra effort to add the new optional properties, and new optional properties still leave the shape compatible with v2.

[07:38] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin S and Martin P: do we want to add the possibility of creation factories and query capabilities? Martin P: no harm. Martin S: no use case? Nick: not sure about dynamic creation of services, but I do see cross-service and cross-service provider query capabilities. So we should not make them impossible.

[07:44] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: suggest we add a MAY for selection dialogs on SPCs for SPs. Any other selection dialogs that may be present are not defined.

[07:46] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin P; link header approach will also work with this.

[07:46] Jim Amsden (IBM): Can these proposals get added to the issue - Otherwise I might miss them during editing

[07:46] Nick Crossley (IBM): Action item: Martin S to propose email vote for issue 29.

[07:46] Martin Sarabura (PTC): I will add them, yes

[07:47] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:47] Nick Crossley (IBM): Next issue - issue 15 - icon size

[07:48] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick to review updated proposal.

[07:48] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:49] Nick Crossley (IBM): Issue 20 - service provider should define domain/scope. Not yet votable?

[07:51] Jim Amsden (IBM): What is the action to make it votable?

[07:52] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Not summarized yet on the issue in language of a ballot

[07:53] Martin Pain (IBM): Martin: What's the opinion of the other members present on the idea of using oslc:serviceProvider link from project area to Service Provider. Nick recounting the use case leading to this ticket.

[07:55] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jean-Luc: what if the mapping is not one-to-one? What if a single project area has multiple service providers?

[07:56] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: In that case, there are multiple values of the oslc:serviceProvider property.

[08:00] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin P: suggest we close this issue with no change to the spec - just advice to servers that if they have the need to link containers and service provider resources, that they do using the oslc:serviceProvider link from the container to the service provider resource

[08:02] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin S: propose we close at this point, since Martin P also has to drop now. Any other business? No

[08:02] Jim Amsden (IBM): I'm ok with that

[08:02] Nick Crossley (IBM): Meeting adjourned

Meetings/Telecon2015.09.03 (last edited 2015-09-05 15:09:40 by sarabura)