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
>
AutomationMeetings20120223
(24 Feb 2012,
MichaelFiedler
)
(raw view)
Time: *1:00PM Eastern US* (contact MichaelFiedler if you'd like to participate) 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 * Main agenda items: * Closure on deployment scenarios - need for additional reviews? * Draft Spec discussion: AutoSpecificationV1 * [[AutoSpecificationV1#Resource_AutomationResult][Automation Result contributions]] * [[AutoSpecificationV1Issues][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 * Specification version discussion * 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 [[AmSpecV2][Architecture Management]] spec will be used to explain this. * Primary topic was Automation Result contributions. * 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 [[AssetMgSpecificationV2][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 * Next workgroup meeting * March 8th
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 - 24 Feb 2012 - 17:31:31 -
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