Event details


  1. Scribe nomination
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of February 4 minutes

  4. Next meeting March 3, 2016
  5. Actions from the previous meeting
    • David to raise issue in core regarding vocabulary versioning
    • Issue 43 - Nick to propose resolution

    • Issue 39 - Nick to propose new names, and will check what they were intended to mean is the what he thinks it should mean Ready for vote

    • Ian to complete review of discovery document by Feb 11
    • Jim to propose appropriate non-normative wording regarding constraints in resource shapes to respect the fact that the normative requirement is SHOULD not MUST Note sent to Arthur asking for clarification

    • Jim to propose wording to address pre-fill of delegated UIs 6.4.1 indicates server MAY support prefill but the client cannot assume any specific format

    • Jim to remove clause 6.4.6 (should that be 6.4.7?) from delegated dialog document Removed Clients SHOULD NOT cache dialog URIs from prefill requests since they are often temporary - it is already expressed in the non-normative section of the document

  6. Topics
    • We are at the second milestone on the completion timeline - all reviews completed

    • Vote to promote all documents in "TC review complete" state to "Committee Draft"
    • Remaining open issues
  7. Other business

How to prepare for this meeting

  1. Review the working documents

  2. All members encouraged to review all documents prior to Feb 15!

Voting Rights

Held by:








Chat transcript from room: oslc

[07:06] David Honey (IBM): David volunteered as scribe

[07:06] David Honey (IBM): List of attendees: David Honey (IBM), Harish (Software AG), Jad El-khoury (KTH), Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus), Jim Amsden (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Nick Crossley (IBM)

[07:06] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:07] David Honey (IBM): Approval of Feb 4 minutes, accepted.

[07:07] David Honey (IBM): Next meeting Mar 3rd.

[07:08] David Honey (IBM): Versioned types issue, David emailed Nick, Nick yet to review.

[07:09] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:10] David Honey (IBM): Nick: Not yet done on issue 43. Won't have time to work on it over next 2 weeks.

[07:10] David Honey (IBM): Nick: Don't think it is critical for public review.

[07:12] David Honey (IBM): Nick: One column in shape table(s) is meaningless.

[07:12] David Honey (IBM): Needs work on Respec.

[07:15] David Honey (IBM): Nick: Changes to accomodate Jim's requirement are possible, but unlikely to be in next 2 weeks.

[07:16] David Honey (IBM): ready for a vote

[07:17] David Honey (IBM): Old impact terms, do they need to be included as archaic?

[07:18] David Honey (IBM): Old terms were not in an obvious published vocabulary. So doesn't need to be included as archaic.

[07:20] David Honey (IBM): Vote to accept proposed resolution to

[07:20] David Honey (IBM): Martin seconded

[07:20] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1

[07:20] Jim Amsden (IBM)3: +1

[07:20] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:20] Harish (Software AG): +1

[07:20] Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus): +1

[07:20] David Honey (IBM): +1

[07:21] David Honey (IBM): Vote passed.

[07:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Use of oslc:range, especially for enumerations, is unclear

[07:23] David Honey (IBM): Nick: There is an IBM tool requiring is oslc:range. There are cases where it is a valid, and useful to have range rather than allowed values (enumerations).

[07:25] David Honey (IBM): Nick: For enumerations, it is worth adding. For others, perhaps little value.

[07:32] David Honey (IBM): David: oslc:range is required for enumeration members to be expressed in terms meaningful to users.

[07:33] David Honey (IBM): Nick: Can we reword oslc:range to be less strict? Does that introduce compatibility concerns? Existing clients who are strict can continue to be strict.

[07:33] David Honey (IBM): Jim: Update description of oslc:range. Review range values. Email the result for review and further discussion.

[07:34] David Honey (IBM): Jim: Agreed as action item.

[07:35] Jim Amsden (IBM)3: consider weakening the description of range. [ ] create an inventory of properties with proposed range values and [ ] email summary then decide next meeting

[07:37] David Honey (IBM):

[07:37] David Honey (IBM): Jim will email Martin to see if issue 44 can be closed.

[07:38] David Honey (IBM): still open.

[07:38] Jim Amsden (IBM)3:

[07:38] David Honey (IBM): can be closed.

[07:39] David Honey (IBM):

[07:40] David Honey (IBM): Jim: ready to close?

[07:43] David Honey (IBM): Nick: Don't think it is an issue.

[07:45] David Honey (IBM): needs discussion, proposal, and a VOTE

[07:47] David Honey (IBM): Nick: xsd:date versus xsd:dateTime is a weak case for adding data types.

[07:48] David Honey (IBM): Duration is a stronger case.

[07:48] David Honey (IBM): Nick: Needs more through review of data types with experts, and we don't have time to do that now.

[07:53] David Honey (IBM): David, Nick: Concerns about interoperability with OSLC 2 clients.

[07:54] David Honey (IBM): Proposal to defer.

[07:54] David Honey (IBM): Wait for comments in public review.

[07:54] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1

[07:54] David Honey (IBM): Nick: seconded

[07:54] Jim Amsden (IBM)3: +1

[07:54] David Honey (IBM): +1

[07:54] Jad El-khoury (KTH): +1

[07:54] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:54] Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus): +1

[07:55] Harish (Software AG): +1

[07:55] David Honey (IBM): Carried.

[07:57] David Honey (IBM): Jim: To work through Nick's reviews.

[07:57] David Honey (IBM): Jim Will update

[07:57] David Honey (IBM): Can have an email vote

[07:58] David Honey (IBM): Nick: will complete resource shape review.

[08:00] David Honey (IBM): Review of core vocab.

[08:00] David Honey (IBM): oslc:archived still serves a purpose.

[08:00] David Honey (IBM): dcterms:creator - should the range be Agent or foaf:Person

[08:01] Nick Crossley (IBM): Had to drop

[08:01] David Honey (IBM): Keep foaf:Person for compatibility with existing implementations.

[08:02] David Honey (IBM):

[08:03] David Honey (IBM): Jim: Will contact Ian Green and Martin Pain to see if there are any changes required from their viewpoint.

[08:06] David Honey (IBM): Jim: Not OSLC's job to describe general web security. Click-jacking is specific to OSLC delegated dialogs.

[08:08] Harish (Software AG): Have to drop now.

[08:09] David Honey (IBM): Martin: Is worth mentioning as guidance. Should discuss with Martin Pain since he had input to discussion.

[08:09] David Honey (IBM): Jim: Proposal is to remove discussion of click-jacking, and need to address standard web security issues unless OSLC introduces specific ones.

[08:11] David Honey (IBM): Jim: Don't think vote is needed since text in spec was non-normative.

[08:13] David Honey (IBM):

[08:14] David Honey (IBM): Clarify role of language-specific literals

[08:21] David Honey (IBM): David: To write proposed resolution to that issue.

Meetings/Telecon2016.02.18 (last edited 2016-02-23 02:31:59 by sarabura)