Event details


  1. Scribe nomination
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of Meetings/Telecon2018.06.28 minutes

  4. Next meeting Meetings/Telecon2018.07.12

  5. Actions from the previous meeting
    • Nick to document features of OASIS ReSpec fork

  6. Topics
    • TBD
  7. Other business

Voting Rights

Held by:







Chat transcript from room: oslc

[14:04] Martin Sarabura: Previous meeting
[14:06] Martin Sarabura: Martin scribe today
[14:07] Martin Sarabura: Comment on minutes - action saying Nick to document existing respec features - overstates what he promises to do
[14:07] Martin Sarabura: Body of minutes says to document new features
[14:08] Martin Sarabura: Will create the place for new features, but all features not feasible at this time
[14:09] Martin Sarabura: David on LOA officially now
[14:10] Martin Sarabura: With revised action item, minutes accepted
[14:10] Martin Sarabura: Nick on ReSpec...
[14:10] Martin Sarabura: Going to make the strength column optional and not visible by default
[14:11] Martin Sarabura: By default text you get on third column is the text of the requiremment - conformance
[14:12] Martin Sarabura: Value of strength column is, if you frequently put in your own text and want to sort based on strength, then you can use the strength column
[14:13] Martin Sarabura: Strength = MUST, MAY, SHOULD
[14:13] Martin Sarabura: Comment from Chet - working on GitHub project for respect and so we should soon have a permanent home for ReSpec, including a wiki
[14:13] Martin Sarabura: Will then have a place to put the documentation rather than random word/email
[14:14] Martin Sarabura: Current document is in templates, checked in
[14:14] Martin Sarabura: Chet said it should be done by end of this week, meaning tomorrow
[14:15] Martin Sarabura: Nick away next week
[14:15] Martin Sarabura: Move shape checker at the same time? Separate GitHub?
[14:15] Martin Sarabura: Makes sense for both of them to be in the same place
[14:16] Martin Sarabura: Github project owner could tie them together if they are separate repos
[14:17] Martin Sarabura: Jim: Re shape checker, SHACL support being added to Eclipse Lyo
[14:17] Martin Sarabura: Is there an easy way to do it, should we start providing SHACL representation of resource shapes along with OSLC resource shapes?
[14:18] Jim Amsden:
[14:19] Jim Amsden: ttps://
[14:19] Jim Amsden:
[14:19] Martin Sarabura: Nick: SHACL has different goals
[14:19] Martin Sarabura: Jim: Talks about SHACL for UI
[14:20] Martin Sarabura: Interesting relationship between SHACL and GraphQL
[14:20] Martin Sarabura: Andrew may be able to help with that
[14:21] Martin Sarabura: Nick: Not in a position to work on that
[14:21] Martin Sarabura: Nick: Shape checker needs rework anyway
[14:21] Martin Sarabura: Error reporting is poor
[14:27] Martin Sarabura: Nick: SHACL advantage over shapes, better theoretical background
[14:27] Martin Sarabura: Some way to convert would be nice, is there interest in OSLC community?
[14:28] Martin Sarabura: David: Hard enough getting applications to use shapes
[14:28] Martin Sarabura: Nick: SHACL may be easier to adopt
[14:28] Martin Sarabura: Shapes need to be done manually
[14:28] Martin Sarabura: Jim: Could use Lyo designer, better than doing Turtle by hand
[14:29] Martin Sarabura: Should underlying model that Lyo uses be resource shapes or SHACL? Probably SHACL if it's moving forward, but is it possible?
[14:29] Martin Sarabura: Resource shapes are not MOF (Meta Object Framework)
[14:30] Martin Sarabura: Should be moving away from closed-world models, everybody moving to graph languages now.
[14:30] Martin Sarabura: We are, after all, in a fashion industry
[14:31] Martin Sarabura: Nick: Theoretically interesting, but not critical at this time
[14:32] Martin Sarabura: Jim: Attachments done, should he proceed with others?
[14:32] Martin Sarabura: Please look at attachments
[14:33] Martin Sarabura: Jim: Convention that Steve/Sam used to mark conformance clauses was different from one doc to the next
[14:33] Martin Sarabura: Make sure we're happy to just mark as conformance clause paragraph
[14:34] Jim Amsden:
[14:35] Martin Sarabura: Nick: Need to agree on location of conformance section, on test documents they're different
[14:36] Martin Sarabura: OASIS convention is last item before appendices
[14:36] Martin Sarabura: Nick: Better color scheme? Or are we happy with "murky green yellow"?
[14:37] Jim Amsden: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../styles/conformance.css" />
[14:39] Jim Amsden: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../styles/oslc-styles.css" /> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../styles/table-styles.css" /> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../styles/definition-styles.css" /> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../styles/conformance.css" />
[14:40] Martin Sarabura: Conformance hyperlinks not working? May be a browser issue
[14:41] Martin Sarabura: Doesn't seem to be
[14:43] Martin Sarabura: Not an issue - user error
[14:43] Martin Sarabura: MQTT uses a yellow highlighter
[14:44] Martin Sarabura: Bright yellow was a bit harsh
[14:45] Martin Sarabura: Lighter yellow seems to be the concensus
[14:45] Martin Sarabura: Jim: Needed to add another conformance statement else nothing appears in the table
[14:46] Jim Amsden: An OSLC server providing the Attachments capability MUST implement the vocabulary defined in this section. [AT-22]
[14:47] Martin Sarabura: All specs need to add the equivalent of AT-21 and AT-22
[14:47] Martin Sarabura: David: Query spec will need to tag all the conformance clauses
[14:48] Martin Sarabura: Style sheet links above are overrides
[14:48] Martin Sarabura: Conformance is not needed if you area happy with the default conformance style sheet
[14:49] Martin Sarabura: OSLC overrides ReSpec with exactly the same contents as ReSpec
[14:49] Martin Sarabura: It's a documentation of what ReSpec has otherwise hidden from you
[14:50] Martin Sarabura: Testing locally can't locate the styles of course
[14:51] Martin Sarabura: This is why ReSpec includes styles directly in the document
[14:55] Martin Sarabura: David sent out query spec for TC members to review, some time ago, may need to revisit certain decisions
[14:55] Martin Sarabura: David happy to discuss query next week
[14:56] Martin Sarabura: Use the text in the document as a guide to the issues
[14:57] Martin Sarabura: Can't close the issues because we didn't formally vote on them
[14:57] Martin Sarabura: Nick: Compatibility is v important on Query - IBM tools may break
[14:58] Martin Sarabura: David: Include examples to demonstrate compatibility, at same time show use of LDPCs
[15:00] Martin Sarabura: Jim: Was David able to review some of my comments? David: Had been discussed
[15:01] Martin Sarabura:

Meetings/Telecon2018.07.05 (last edited 2018-07-12 13:23:28 by sarabura)