The Automation meetings alternate times each meeting to accommodate the global team.

Agenda

* Reoccurring agenda items:

• Recap of previous meeting AutomationMeetings20120216
• Update on action items
  • AutoSpecificationV1 updates - up to date from last week's comments

• Closure on deployment scenarios - need for additional reviews?
• Draft Spec discussion: AutoSpecificationV1
  • Automation Result contributions
  • Open issues discussion
  • Plans for presenting to Core
  • Implementation plans
• Next meetings:
  • 8 March - no meeting on 1 March

Minutes

Attending : Michael Fiedler, Charles Rankin, Paul McMahan? , Vaibhav Srivastava, Sheehan Anderson, Dan Berg, Nathan Bak, Eric Bordeau, John Arwe

* Deployment scenarios

• Michael Fiedler will work with John Arwe and Bill Higgins to come to closure

• Workgroup agreed that the Automation specification would be V2.0 to indicate its relationship with the OSLC Core V2.0 spec. Language similar to that used in the Architecture Management spec will be used to explain this.

• Discussion centered around two main themes:
  • The need to somehow associate descriptive information with contributions. This information could be test descriptions, labels, type information, creation dates, etc. While a programmatic consumer might have a difficult time interpreting this additional information, it could be put to good use in a UI for human consumers. Possible technical approaches:
    • A new Contribution resource with some core attributes (dcterms:title, dcterms:description, dcterms:type, etc) and a link to the actual contribution (logfile, binaries, test result, etc). Instead of a link, the actual contribution could be an in-line resource as well.
    • A minimal contribution (link or inline resource only) with reified statements providing additional information about the contribution. This approach is similar to the one taken in the Asset Management spec to provide details for asset relationships.
  • The second theme was around the potential "burden" of providing this additional information. Would the entity adding the contribution (whether provider or an external agent) have the information required to provide the additional attributes? There are scenarios where the creator of the contribution in the result may be several layers removed from the source of the contribution and unable to provide the details.
  • No resolution reached. MichaelFiedler will create some examples of Automation Results with contributions and the workgroup will evaluate them from the perspective of providers and consumers.
    • As currently defined in the spec as a generic resource
    • As an independent resource with additional descriptive attributes
    • As a minimal resource with reified statements providing additional information

• March 8th