Event details


  1. Scribe nomination
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of January 21 minutes

  4. Next meeting February 18, 2016
  5. Actions from the previous meeting
    • Primary reviews completed by Feb 1
    • Nick to write up alternative proposal in issue 43 - on agenda

    • Martin S to highlight primary reviewers in bold on document list and add info about how to provide review feedback done

    • Nick to review issue 45 and suggest changes to make issue closable

    • Martin P requested to provide additional feedback on issue 53 on agenda

    • Jim to review Nick's proposal for issue 55

    • Nick to provide fix in ReSpec for issue 51

    • David to raise issue in core regarding vocabulary versioning
  6. Topics
  7. Other business

How to prepare for this meeting

  1. Review the working documents

  2. If you are a primary reviewer, submit your completed reviews by Feb 1

Voting Rights

Held by:








Chat transcript from room: oslc

[07:07] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin to scribe

[07:07] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Roll call:

[07:07] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David Honey (IBM) Harish (Software AG) Jad El-khoury (KTH) Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus) Jim Amsden (IBM) Martin Sarabura (PTC) Nick Crossley (IBM)

[07:09] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:09] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Seems to be agreement on this one - further action not required - Nick to check that concolusions reflected in the specs

[07:09] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim has added to the specs

[07:09] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Should be closed

[07:10] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:10] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Also fixed

[07:11] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Will work on document using OSLC-CCM for vocabulary.

[07:11] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Will review with Nick. Still on his list

[07:12] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Vocabularies for OSLC not the same as domain vocabularies - can only add to it

[07:13] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Re resource shapes - no standard way to indicate evolution for query builder

[07:13] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Evolution of shapes is supported in theory - no recognized versioning system

[07:14] Martin Sarabura (PTC): URI structure can be used to associate versions of shapes

[07:16] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Shapes themselves are constructed dynamically from resources that have versions

[07:16] Martin Sarabura (PTC): No need to dig deeper at this time - will continue offline

[07:17] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:17] David Honey (IBM):

[07:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Document statuses: Delegated dialogs still need some discussion

[07:21] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick has completed a review of Attachments

[07:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Link guidance: No open actions

[07:22] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Delegated dialogs: Martin P still going to review?

[07:23] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Resource shapes: Looking for historical view from Nick and Martin P

[07:23] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Plan to do further review of vocab and resource shapes

[07:24] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim has run shape checker recently but could be run again

[07:24] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Minutes accepted from previous meeting

[07:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jira issues

[07:25] Jim Amsden (IBM): [ ] OSLCCORE-43 OSLC Core 2.0 Appendix A: Common Properties defines things not currently in OSLC3

[07:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:26] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Nick to propose as part of review of shapes/vocab, still open

[07:26] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Wanted to make change to respec, lower priority than other fixes: Representation and bibliography

[07:26] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:26] Jim Amsden (IBM): OSLCCORE-54 Extend ReSpec to support oslc:range and oslc:allowValues for enumerations

[07:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: This can be deferred, table has been created by hand as needed. Nick already marked it as such

[07:27] Jim Amsden (IBM): OSLCCORE-53 Does a ServiceProvider have one Service per oslc:domain value, or does it reflect the server's desired container structure.

[07:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Ian was going to review - come back when he joins the call

[07:28] Jim Amsden (IBM): OSLCCORE-55 oslc:describes on ResourceShape should be optional in ReSpec

[07:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Related to 43, respec should not crash if not specified

[07:29] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Not marked as deferred, 43 is the driver

[07:29] Jim Amsden (IBM): OSLCCORE-39 Names and descriptions of impact analysis direction properties are misleading

[07:29] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Property defines relation between subject and object nodes in a graph; impact perceived in same direction or opposite or both?

[07:31] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: The current names are misleading

[07:31] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Impact always flows downstream - downstream is impacted artifact

[07:32] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Names don't imply impact

[07:32] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Proposal is to maintain old terms and mark them archaic

[07:33] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Recommend tools use new terms but accept old ones - some compatibilty cost

[07:33] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Don't know of tools that use them

[07:34] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin S: Agree, we don't use the terms

[07:35] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: We may be creating the very incompatibility that we're trying to avoid

[07:36] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Propose define new terms, non-normatively specified, mark old terms archaic

[07:36] ian green: ian joined

[07:36] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Non-normatively specify how they are related to old terms

[07:37] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Don't use OWL same-as

[07:38] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick to propose new names, and will check what they were intended to mean is the what he thinks it should mean

[07:38] Jim Amsden (IBM): OSLCCORE-53 Does a ServiceProvider have one Service per oslc:domain value, or does it reflect the server's desired container structure.

[07:38] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:39] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Relationship between spc, sp, service, oslc usage property and relationship to underlying LDPCs

[07:39] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Can be completely orthogonal - may not have contents

[07:40] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Usage: Why a service should also be an LDPC.

[07:41] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Service can have multiple creation factories, multiple dialog uris, etc each marked with a different usage

[07:41] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Therefore, service should be an ldpc and service is free to decide its contents

[07:41] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Therefore no issue

[07:42] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Ian has not yet done full review of discovery document

[07:42] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Ian: By this time next week

[07:43] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: All the open issues

[07:43] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Propose to drop entirely extensions part of shape document

[07:44] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: OSLC2 shapes to be carried forward, but in doing so OSLC3 text largely taken out of W3C spec

[07:44] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Some recommendations speculative

[07:45] Martin Sarabura (PTC): No experimental implementation so we'd be standardizing something for which we have no prior art

[07:45] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Especially since we have SHACL coming

[07:45] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Propose to remove section 9 of

[07:46] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Read old spec to ensure nothing being introduced to make incompatible, found nothing

[07:47] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Only included because it was added to W3C

[07:48] Martin Sarabura (PTC): W3C has gone in direction of SHACL, which has lost some features but basically the right direction

[07:49] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Driver is compatibility with OSLC2

[07:49] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Not clear that SHACL is compatible, or that it has same coverage

[07:49] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Proposal: Drop section 9, seconded by Nick.

[07:50] David Honey (IBM): +1

[07:50] ian green: +1

[07:50] Harish (Software AG): +1

[07:50] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:50] Jim Amsden (IBM): +

[07:50] Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus): +1

[07:50] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1

[07:50] Jad El-khoury (KTH): +1

[07:50] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Carried

[07:51] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:51] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Skip core vocabulary discussion for now

[07:51] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Resource shapes: Feedback from Jad

[07:51] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Use of oslc:range. Seems like it is rarely used

[07:52] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Not many discussions about recommended use in early days

[07:53] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Since then some of the IBM tooling has used oslc:range - would be useful for any other tool that would like to integrate at least with IBM tools

[07:53] Martin Sarabura (PTC): But generally useful for all applications

[07:53] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Why were they not included? Nick: Initially there was no shape at all, just evolved over time

[07:54] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Just didn't come up

[07:54] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Seems beneficial to add

[07:55] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: eg., validated by property in requirement amangement domain

[07:55] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Probably over-constraining target value of property

[07:56] Martin Sarabura (PTC): eg., why is created by not a foaf?

[07:57] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Tools should be allowed to constrain further. Maybe the issue is that it's hard to know what should be constrained and in what way?

[07:58] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: If we word it with a degree of permissiveness then we can talk about valid constraints

[07:58] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: How to distinguish between normative or non-normative?

[07:59] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Ian: Can still leave it "soft" in the spec

[07:59] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: What does "applicable" mean? Not consistent, tools do what they want

[08:00] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Ian: Is there any expectation to act differently?

[08:00] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Guides the UI

[08:02] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: Maybe helps guide the UI design, project plan

[08:03] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Ian: It's a good start anyway

[08:03] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Section 6.2: constraint worded as SHOULD

[08:04] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Server can do whatever it wants. Therefore oslc:range can be applied as a guide

[08:05] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim to raise an issue on this and solicit further feedback

[08:06] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Next: Delegated dialogs

[08:06] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Feedback from Ian: Guidance on oslc:label?

[08:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Clickjacking section has been augmented

[08:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Prefill on selection dialog?

[08:09] ian green: see "constraints" in

[08:10] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: context used to inform dialog

[08:12] Martin Sarabura (PTC): We don't rule it out, nor do we describe it

[08:13] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Non-normative section saying prefill is allowed, servers can choose to support it, spec silent on the details

[08:14] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Ian: Concern for forward compatility?

[08:15] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Pre-fill just means post to selection dialog factory

[08:16] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Implementation that chooses to use this ability does not constrain the spec going forward

[08:17] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Could imagine allowing the URI to be augmented by query fragment to satisfy Martin's use case

[08:18] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Ian: Already implementations out there that allow POST with pre-fills for selection dialog uri

[08:19] Martin Sarabura (PTC): If we do decide to extend in this area can we be sure that we won't break existing implementations?

[08:19] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Add normative clause "servers may support pre-fill post to selection dialog and you get uRI to temporary dialog"

[08:20] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Server can interpret the information however it wishes to

[08:20] Martin Sarabura (PTC): We don't specify the content of the iFrame or how generated, nor do we need to specify the contents of pre-fill

[08:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Information given to pre-fill may be constrained by shape

[08:24] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Ian: Selection and creation both have associated shape - selection shape describes the resources you could select

[08:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Pre-fill content intended to inform client how it can constrain the results

[08:26] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim to put clause in and request review

[08:26] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Should we remove 6.4.6? MCS note: Should this be 6.4.7?

[08:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Client could very well cache prefilled dialogs; if no longer valid it could get rejected by server

[08:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC): However probably best practices

[08:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Ian: These are resources just like any other - they could get stale

[08:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Couldn't we just use no-cache or etag?

[08:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Ian: Yes

[08:29] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim will remove clause

[08:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Useful as a non-normative descriptive section

[08:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Dialog label still outstanding

[08:31] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Out of time, meeting adjourned

[08:31] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Next call core vocabulary

Meetings/Telecon2016.02.04 (last edited 2016-02-06 17:22:54 by sarabura)