This wiki is locked. Future workgroup activity and specification development must take place at
our new wiki
. For more information, see
this blog post about the new governance model
and
this post about changes to the website
.
TWiki
>
Main Web
>
AutomationHome
>
AutomationMeetings
>
AutomationMeetings20120112
(13 Jan 2012,
MichaelFiedler
)
(raw view)
Time: *1:00 PM Eastern US* (contact MichaelFiedler if you'd like to participate) The Automation meetings alternate times each meeting to accomodate the global team. ---++ Agenda * Reoccurring agenda items: * Recap of previous meeting AutomationMeetings20120105 * Main agenda items: * Draft Spec discussion: AutoSpecificationV1 * Continue discussion * Need for input/output parameters - what are the scenarios? * Result Contribution attribute representation * Review other resource attributes * Getting RDF/XML examples * Do the proposed V1 artifacts satisfy the V1 scenarios? * Additional workgroup members interested in participating in spec authoring? * PramodChandoria * Next meetings: * 19 January ---++ Minutes Attending: Michael Fiedler, Charles Rankin, Pramod Chandoria, Max Vohlken, Sheehan Anderson, John Arwe, Vaibhav Srivastava, Barys Dubauski, Lucas Panjer, Paul McMahan, Daniel Berg Attending: * Discussion on need to distinguish input and output parameters * Should output parameters just be part of the result contributions? * Example from test automation - expecting result contributions to be references to QM OSLC artifacts with no real place to insert output parameters * Possibility that parameters value for actual execution differed from value in Plan or Request * Example: requested to run Windows, but actually ran on Linux. Need to record both input and output values * After discussion, agreement that we need to have distinct input/output parameters on results. Plans and Requests only need inputParameters. * Discussion on Read Only vs Read/Write vs Unspecified for parameters * Agreement that the writeability of parameters will be unspecified in V1 * Don't want to cause a compatibility problem later when authoring scenarios come into scope * Discussion on Result contribution attributes * General agreement that the definition seems to meet the scenarios with the drawback that a consumer of the results will likely need to understand contribution formats for specific providers. * Need for additional documents in the specification * Examples of resources (RDF/XML, JSON) * Automation Vocabulary (PramodChandoria starting to investigate) * Guidance for implementers (recommended patterns, etc). Example: name/value pairs for input parms. * Next meeting: 19 January at 10AM Eastern US time.
E
dit
|
A
ttach
|
P
rint version
|
H
istory
: r2
<
r1
|
B
acklinks
|
V
iew topic
|
Ra
w
edit
|
M
ore topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 13 Jan 2012 - 15:44:14 -
MichaelFiedler
Main
Main Web
Create New Topic
Index
Search
Changes
Notifications
RSS Feed
Statistics
Preferences
Webs
Main
Sandbox
TWiki
Български
Cesky
Dansk
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
日本語
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Svenska
简体中文
簡體中文
Copyright � by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Contributions are governed by our
Terms of Use
Ideas, requests, problems regarding this site?
Send feedback