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.

Date: Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Time: 12:00 PM Eastern, 9:00 AM Pacific, 6:00 PM Zurich (contact SteveSpeicher if you'd like to participate)

Previous minutes: CmMeetings20120201


Reoccurring agenda items: Main agenda items: Assigned scenario owners: Assigned specification owners Previous Action Items:
  • VijayAggarwal to complete list of ITOpsToDev scenarios and prioritize
  • SteveSpeicher - take feedback from Andre around implementation guidance wiki page, etc
  • SteveSpeicher - 2010 / CM 2.0 Retrospective - review action items from last meeting
  • SofiaYeung - State transitions between hierarchies of CRs - Sofia to draft some scenarios
  • SofiaYeung - needs to do batch updating of CRs. This has been discussed off and on, and there are
Next meetings:
  • Feb 29- continue with 3.0 items


Recap of previous meeting CmMeetings20120201

Community & Implementation Updates

Specification Issues Review

  • SteveSpeicher has proposed a change to the wording around link labels. Desire to have labels handled in a common way in OSLC Core. Some concern about using reification since W3C might deprecate reified statements in RDF (OSLC Core workgroup investigating). BrianSteele +1 to the proposed wording.

CmStateTransitions Review

SteveSpeicher mentions we should go back to the scenarios behind state transitions to inform our design. Three scenarios identified:

  • CM of Requirements - BrianSteele: Need oslc_cm:actionResolve and oslc_cm:actionClose. The resolve action might work better with delegated UI in thise case (to add reviewers), whereas the close action should be headless.
  • ITOpsToDev - Need to update the state of resources in two different systems on actions.
  • IDE Integration - RobertElves will look at defining useful actions in ScenariosMylyn to feed into the CmStateTransitions design. SteveSpeicher mentioned that most Mylyn scenarios seem to require headless state transitions. RobertElves agreed.

SteveSpeicher asked about intermediate states. Is there a way to move a CR to a state immediately that might require more than one state transition internally in the CM tool?

SofiaYeung and RobertElves talked about understanding what fields are required to change states (headless). SteveSpeicher mentioned that one benefit of the current proposal is that you perform a GET on the action URI to determine this.

W3C Community Groups Update

Date for trial to start is still TBD.

Attendees: SamPadgett, RobertElves, BrianSteele, SamitMehta, SteveSpeicher, SofiaYeung

Regrets: EricRoy, VijayAggarwal, MichaelFiedler, DaveSteinberg

-- SamPadgett - 01 Feb 2012

Topic revision: r2 - 15 Feb 2012 - 18:02:02 - SamPadgett
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform 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