Meetings/Telecon2015.10.15

Event details

Agenda

  1. Scribe nomination
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of October 1 minutes

  4. Next meeting October 29
  5. Actions from the previous meeting
    • Martin S: To determine what other things need to be done for review.
    • All TC members: Look through remaining issues prior to public review especially in light of our resolution of issue 23 above.
    • Nick: Ask W3C for clarification regarding whether prefer headers apply to nested LDPCs or just the requested LDPC.
  6. Hot issues:
    • OSLCCORE-41 Add oslc:hidden to ResourceShape - this is probably fine, but we need to decide how to do it: as an update to OSLC Core 2.0 Appendix A: Common Properties on open-services.net, or migrate this appendix as a new multi-part document for OSLC 3.0, or push to W3C SHACL.

    • OSLCCORE-40 Potential click jacking issue for delegated dialogs - discussion

    • Other issues?
  7. OSLC and LDP Overlap and Compatibility Just a general discussion at this point

  8. Other business

Voting Rights

Held by:

Minutes

Chair

Scribe

Attendees

Regrets

Resolutions

Actions

Chat transcript from room: oslc

Chat transcript from room: oslc at 2015-10-15 GMT-08:00

[07:05] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick to scribe

[07:05] List of attendees: David Honey (IBM), Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus), Jim Amsden (IBM), Martin Pain (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Nick Crossley (IBM)

[07:05] Nick Crossley (IBM): List of attendees: David Honey (IBM), Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus), Jim Amsden (IBM), Martin Pain (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Nick Crossley (IBM)

[07:06] Nick Crossley (IBM): Review and approval of October 1st meeting minutes

[07:06] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin: one change to one of the resolutions was made after the meeting, but the minutes themselves did reflect the state as of the meeting

[07:06] Nick Crossley (IBM): No objections to the minutes

[07:06] Nick Crossley (IBM): Resolved: approved


[07:07] Nick Crossley (IBM): Action item for Martin: what is needed for submission to public review. We are on track - no other special actions are required.

[07:07] Nick Crossley (IBM): Timely availability of three implementations may be an issue for later stages.

[07:10] Harish (SoftwareAG): Sorry, joining a bit late today.


[07:16] Jim Amsden (IBM): service discovery, if LDPC, and preference applied to see the member triples to see services since they are supposed to be inlined, services that are themselves would have to include the member triples. That might be expensive. If that is likely to be an issue for a provider or domain, they should restructure the top-level container so that the service is a container of top-level LDPCs not thousands of artifacts. May require some guidance - GET on ServiceProvider will get the Services, and should not return all the members of the services if they are LDPCs and contain LDPCs.

[07:18] Jim Amsden (IBM): ServiceProvider LDPC Service LDCP creationFactory LDPC many artifacts. GET on ServiceProvider should proved the Services inline, but not the creationFactory or its members


[07:18] Nick Crossley (IBM): Action item for Nick: do Prefer headers apply to the top-level resource, and/or all other resources returned in the same http request?

[07:19] Nick Crossley (IBM): My reading is that the header Preference-Applied must apply to the whole http response - it is an http header.

[07:21] Martin Pain (IBM): http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcCoreSpecification#Resource_Service

[07:21] Martin Pain (IBM): ServiceProvider requires Services to be inlined. Services require CreationFactory to be inlined, but not its oslc:creation link

[07:24] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin: we should recommend that a creation factory has a different URI from its oslc:creation property - providers SHOULD NOT collapse the creation factory and its LDPC into one resource.

[07:26] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: Implementations are free to make the oslc:creation resource of creation factories LDPCs or not. They may also make creation factories themselves LDPCs or not.

[07:27] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: action item: follow up with LDP editor to see if he shares the same interpretation.


[07:29] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: with help from Nick, got all SVN changes checked in, and reorganized tree to follow SVN conventions. Merged Jim's changes into trunk, and added tag 'pre-v2-compatibility' for the last version before all the changes for v2 compatibility. Jim's branch is now defunct.

[07:32] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: individual documents in multi-part work product previously had their own Terms section with parts of the Core vocabulary. This didn’t fit in with the way we need to have a single vocab document for open-services.net/ns. So the individual Terms sections have been merged into one vocabulary page. Each separate document has a link to this urged vocab page.

[07:32] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: ReSpec has no support for pulling in part of a vocabulary for a fragmented set of Terms sections.

[07:33] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: all shapes and the vocab has been checked by the ShapeChecker tool.

[07:34] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: The ShapeChecker tool itself has been updated to handle several more optional properties, and to have more options to exclude some warnings.

[07:39] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: ShapeChecker tool has no way to distinguish between unused vocabulary terms and terms that are used but not in shapes (things like URIs used in options, headers, preferences, etc.)

[07:39] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin S: what is the state of the ReSpec adoption by OASIS?

[07:40] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: having a (slow) email exchange with OASIS staff. Hope to get OASIS to host a git clone, or own one on github, and have the contents maintained by the TCs that use it. Practically speaking, that probably means maintained by Nick for OSLC TCs!


[07:42] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: Issue 41 - oslc:hidden. Intended to be a hint for UIs that the property should not be displayed. An IBM group would like to extend this to define a meaning for oslc:hidden on a shape itself - probably meaning that an entire class should be hidden.

[07:44] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: possible options: (1) find a way to have a maintenance update to the OSLC 2 spec. Issue: do we have the resourcing left at open-services.net to do this?

[07:44] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: (2) migrate shape spec to OASIS, as a new part of the work product. Issue: what about compatibility with SHACL?

[07:45] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: OSLC is an extension of LDP, so can we make OSLC shapes an extension of SHACL?

[07:48] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: we need a migration path from shapes to SHACL

[07:49] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: thinks we do not need this - a provider chooses one OR the other.

[07:49] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: OSLC resource shape can be a sub-class of SHACL

[07:54] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: a tool to convert a resource shape to SHACL could be an important way for us to verify a degree of compatibility, and a way for providers to consider how they might adopt SHACL.

[07:54] Jim Amsden (IBM): https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-core/OslcAndLdp

[07:55] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: that link shows a comparison between resource shapes and SHACL.

[07:55] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: there are some areas of incompatibility that we might want to push back on - see if we can get some capabilities added to SHACL

[07:56] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: do we want to adopt resource shapes into Core 3.0?

[07:57] Nick Crossley (IBM): Taking material from OSLC Core 2.0 appendix A as a contribution

[08:01] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: would have argued in W3C Shapes WG for more compatibility with OSLC resource shapes - some of the differences appear gratuitous.

[08:02] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: but compatibility is a concern for us, so we should keep OSLC shapes.

[08:03] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: Proposal: Accept the Resource Shapes parts of OSLC Core Appendix A as a contribution to OASIS Core 3.0, and make this become a new part of the one multi-part work product that is OSLC Core 3.0.

[08:05] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: Proposal: Accept the Resource Shapes parts of OSLC Core 2.0 Appendix A as a contribution to OASIS Core 3.0, add its terms to the OSLC Core 3.0 vocabulary, and add the shapes for the Resource Shape and Property Definition (etc.) resources to OSLC Core 3.0.

[08:06] Jim Amsden (IBM): +1

[08:06] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1

[08:06] Martin Pain (IBM): +1

[08:06] Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus): +1

[08:06] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[08:06] David Honey (IBM): +1

[08:06] Harish (SoftwareAG): +1


[08:07] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: Proposal to adopt oslc:hidden as a optional property of oslc:ResourceShape, as per issue 41

[08:10] Nick Crossley (IBM): David: what is the use case?

[08:11] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: A report builder wants to distinguish between internal resource classes that are part of the implementation detail, and resource classes that represent user-level artifacts.

[08:14] Nick Crossley (IBM): Other use cases exist where an internal shape is needed for tooling.

[08:15] David Honey (IBM): +1

[08:15] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin S: backward compatibility is not an issue, since old clients can just ignore it.

[08:15] Jim Amsden (IBM): +1

[08:15] Martin Pain (IBM): +1

[08:15] Harish (SoftwareAG): +1

[08:15] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[08:15] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin S: second. Proceeding to vote.

[08:15] Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus): +1

[08:15] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1


[08:16] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: email from Nick described some areas where the descriptions of the shape properties should be improved. Jim will consider those areas as he incorporates the material.

[08:17] Nick Crossley (IBM): David: do we have a list of issues to address or review in the next meeting?

[08:17] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin S: action item: will work with Jim on getting a list for next meeting.


[08:18] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim: Arthur submitted a Shapes proposal to W3C. Should we take that material, or just OSLC Core 2.0?

[08:23] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: There are wording improvements in Arthur's W3C submission that we probably should adopt.

[08:23] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: However, Arthur also make some suggestions for extensions, and not all of those are ready for OSLC adoption - for example, there are some issues with the suggested reverseProperty property.

[08:32] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick & Jim: agree to ignore Arthur's suggested extensions. Would adopt the OSLC Core 2.0 material, and just look at Arthur's submission to help with clarifying any wording.

[08:33] Nick Crossley (IBM): Meeting adjourned

Meetings/Telecon2015.10.15 (last edited 2015-10-20 12:58:37 by sarabura)