Event details


  1. Scribe nomination
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of September 29 minutes

  4. Next meeting October 27, 2016

  5. Actions from the previous meeting
    • Jim to propose method for access context discovery
    • TC should review comments received and decide whether we should delay the request for committee specification
    • If we decide to proceed, Martin to submit request for a ballot
  6. Topics
    • Review feedback received and decide what to do
  7. Other business

Voting Rights

Held by:








Chat transcript from room: oslc

[07:04] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Nick to scribe

[07:04] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: List of attendees: David Honey (Persistent/IBM), Harish K (Software AG), Harish K (Software AG)1, Jad El-khoury (KTH), Jim Amsden (IBM), Martin Sarabura (PTC), Nick Crossley (IBM), Nick Crossley (IBM)1, anonymous

[07:04] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:05] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Start by reviewing action items

[07:05] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: 1. Jim to review discovery for access context: not yet complete.

[07:06] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Martin suggests we raise an issue for this; Jim agreed.

[07:06] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Action item for Martin to raise the issue - will sign to Jim.

[07:06] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: 2. Action item - review OSLC Core feedback - will be addressed later in the meeting.

[07:07] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Jim - wants to resolve the Shape URI issue so we can get the shapes published

[07:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:12] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Jim - can we do redirection from to OASIS SVN?

[07:13] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Nick: not to SVN, but we can, and plan to, to the OASIS document library for shapes and vocabularies

[07:13] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Jim: call for vote on resolution to

[07:23] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Agreed to include the text on the LDPC recommendation

[07:24] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Discussion about whether or not the text should be part of the Core spec itself.

[07:24] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Jim recommends we add text to the section on shapes.

[07:27] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Nick agrees with Jim, but notes that the issue of agreeing the pattern (issue 25) is logically separate from the issue of folding it into the spec.

[07:27] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Jim proposes voting for issue 25 proposal, Martin seconds.

[07:28] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: +1

[07:28] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:28] Harish K (Software AG): +1

[07:28] Jim Amsden (IBM): +1

[07:28] Jad El-khoury (KTH): +1

[07:28] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): +1

[07:28] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Vote carried.

[07:30] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Action: Jim to add text to Core spec, ready for next committee specification.

[07:32] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Jim and Martin believe the change is non-material in the sense of the OASIS change process.

[07:33] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: And so would not require new comment period.

[07:33] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:38] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Discussion on feedback from Tim Meyer.

[07:39] Nick Crossley (IBM)1: Discussion over RDF/XML representation. We agreed the standard already ALLOWS for backward compatibility. We believe that it would be wrong for the spec to MANDATE backward compatibility, since it might not be relevant for some domains and some servers.

[07:46] Nick Crossley (IBM): References to SHACL: Jim feels the existing reference is valid, since the SHACL work is still active (if making very slow progress). And there's little incentive to extend the shape standard, especially in ways that over-constriain data - but implementors are free to add their own custom extensions.

[07:51] Nick Crossley (IBM): If we say that we have no intent to extend the OSLC shape standard at this time, that addresses several points in the feedback.

[07:52] Nick Crossley (IBM): For issue 3, we feel that LDP Containers is the better way to address hierarchy in general. Domains can also define their own parent/child relationships as necessary - as we have recently done for Change Management.

[07:53] Nick Crossley (IBM): We agree a guidance doc explaining approaches to representations of groups, hierarchies, and ordering would be useful, but needn't be part of the spec itself.

[07:57] Nick Crossley (IBM): Nick: on issue 5, authentication: I agree that this is a repeated stumbling block for people trying to implement OSLC, but I feel it would be a mistake for OSLC to try to define an exact authentication protocol - the current approach of recommended a few likely standards is the best approach.

[07:57] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim agrees with the above.

[08:00] Nick Crossley (IBM): Issue 4 - formatted text. Jim: there are standard ways to encode text. Nick mentioned we already support ref XMLLiteral, and the domain specs often say the text must be suitable for an HTML span element.

[08:01] Nick Crossley (IBM): Jim thinks adding a new subtype would not be too much of an issue.

[08:01] Nick Crossley (IBM): We agree to continue this discussion: Jim will consider the effort involved.

[08:02] Nick Crossley (IBM): Martin also would like us to consider the string vs. langString issue.

[08:03] Nick Crossley (IBM): Meeting adjourned.

[08:03] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin to raise issue on string/langString

[08:03] Harish K (Software AG): Thanks everyone. I need to drop off now as well.

Meetings/Telecon2016.10.13 (last edited 2016-10-14 15:45:57 by sarabura)