Event details


  1. Scribe nomination
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of October 13 minutes

  4. Next meeting November 10, 2016

  5. Actions from the previous meeting
    • Martin to post an issue to review discovery for access context
    • Jim to add issue 25 proposal verbiage to core spec as a non-material change
    • Martin to post an issue recommending we publish a guidance doc explaining approaches to representations of groups, hierarchies, and ordering
    • Jim will continue reviewing the feedback and advise by email
    • Martin to post an issue re adding langString as an alternative to string in resource shapes
  6. Topics
    • TBD
  7. Other business

Voting Rights

Held by:








Chat transcript from room: oslc

[07:04] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin will scribe

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

[07:05] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:05] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Minutes accepted - just a typo

[07:06] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin's action items not done - continue to next meeting

[07:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim to close issue 78

[07:08] Martin Sarabura (PTC): add action item

[07:09] Martin Sarabura (PTC): To main item: Re Mr. Meyer's feedback

[07:10] Jad El-khoury (KTH):

[07:11] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: OSLC domains are minimally specified in order to make implementation easier

[07:11] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Keep as open. extensible, flexible as possible

[07:12] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Therefore insufficient information in spec to define all constraints in a given implementation

[07:12] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Invented resource shapes as simplification of OWL

[07:12] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Shapes describe resources and support discovery and constrain vocabularies for specific purposes

[07:13] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Servers always free to further extend and constrain the vocabularies

[07:13] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Recommended to, not just "free to"

[07:14] Martin Sarabura (PTC): No standard set of extended properties, cardinalities and data types. There is a way to describe what those extensions are

[07:15] Martin Sarabura (PTC): We can't specify overly-constrained designs for specific purposes

[07:17] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: Isn't this about how to specify enough so the client can be written more easily?

[07:19] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: Doesn't this make client development more expensive?

[07:19] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Delegated dialogs, etc capabilities exist

[07:21] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: Not so much for integration as for developing a client in a given domain

[07:22] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Can't force other server to specify or use your constraints

[07:23] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Even if constraints not speicified, operations could fail. Better approachh is clearly to use reflection but maybe that's not available for some tools

[07:24] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Historically, initial implementations didn't publish shapes because that was considered a luxury

[07:24] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Over time the importance of shape discovery became more obvious as world became more general

[07:25] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Could still hard code per server type in near term, later on add reflection

[07:26] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Shapes not 100% solution but surprisingly complete

[07:26] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Shapes can be described by shapes - possible to extend them in a standard way too

[07:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Instance property on the shape makes meta-shapes discoverable

[07:27] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Puts burden on users to do the discovery, benefit is open world.

[07:29] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: Client developers want a little more constraints than what we are inclined to provide

[07:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Agree that we need not bring this into 3.0

[07:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Other standard property we use is owl:sameas for rdf type definitions

[07:30] Martin Sarabura (PTC): and property definitions

[07:31] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Raise action item to write note to describe ibm use of shapes and owl:sameas and use the shapes to inform dynamic client creation

[07:32] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jad: Bit confusing as to intentions of shapes - need explanation of how to use shapes

[07:33] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: General idea for shapes in note that Arthur Ryman wrote for w3c

[07:33] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: In the bibliography for the spec

[07:34] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Broadly in agreement - system is extensible, way to describe constraints, good for now

[07:35] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Tim requesting specific extensions - in theory we could consider putting them in on a case-by-case basis. May run into compatibility issues; we also should keep in mind that SHACL may eventually get published

[07:35] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Long term not sure what's going on with SHACL

[07:36] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Not sure what they come up will be usable by our community.

[07:36] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Shouldn't be in a hurry given the uncertainties with regards to SHACL

[07:37] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Many implementations of resource shapes 2.0, seem to be working.

[07:38] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Plus, controversy and additional time for SHACL indicates risk; leave OSLC shapes as is for now

[07:40] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Invest in OSLC for JS may provide more value by demonstrating best practices

[07:41] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: This is ongoing work, is fine to proceed

[07:43] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jad: Should we respond to email? Jim: Have responded by email, not required to respond further unless somebody on TC feels it is required

[07:43] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: We should encourage Tim to participate on future meetings.

[07:45] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Eg., new type of literal for formatted text seems reasonable

[07:45] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: Response would be to wait to see what happens in SHACL

[07:45] Martin Sarabura (PTC): David: Just not at a point in time where we can assess properly

[07:48] Martin Sarabura (PTC): There is a strong sub-community in SHACL that wants to avoid any UI-related constraints

[07:48] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Nick: We may at some point wish to take up the UI constraints if SHACL chooses to drop it

[07:51] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin: Proposes that we request the TC administration to hold a Special Majority Vallot to approve OSLC Core Version 3.0 located at as a Committee Specification.

[07:51] Nick Crossley (IBM): Seconded

[07:51] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Second

[07:52] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): +1

[07:52] Jim Amsden (IBM): +1

[07:52] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:52] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1

[07:52] Jad El-khoury (KTH): +1

[07:52] Jim Amsden (IBM): +1

[07:52] Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus): +1

[07:53] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Harish votes in favor as voice vote

[07:53] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Carried

[07:53] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Martin action item to submit the appropriate paperwork

[07:55] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim: Response to Tim, Martin to respond once more

[07:55] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Open issues on TRS - 70 and 71. Nick: 68 changes made to the proposal

[07:56] Martin Sarabura (PTC):

[07:57] Jim Amsden (IBM): Proposal: Accept the proposed resolution

[07:57] Nick Crossley (IBM): Seconded

[07:57] Nick Crossley (IBM): +1

[07:57] Jean-Luc Johnson (Airbus): +1

[07:57] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): +1

[07:58] Jad El-khoury (KTH): +1

[07:58] Jim Amsden (IBM): +1

[07:58] Martin Sarabura (PTC): +1

[07:58] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Harish voice vote in favor

[07:58] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Carried

[07:59] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Jim action item to move the verbiage into the spec

[07:59] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Next meeting to discuss 70 and 71

[07:59] Martin Sarabura (PTC): Meeting adjourned

Meetings/Telecon2016.10.27 (last edited 2016-12-02 19:34:05 by sarabura)