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, 23 May 2012

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

Previous minutes: CmMeetings20120411


Recurring 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:
  • TBD

Invitees: SamPadgett, SteveSpeicher, SofiaYeung, RobertElves, SamitMehta, VincentPhan? , BrianSteele, EricRoy, VijayAggarwal, DaveSteinberg, MichaelFiedler


Attendees: SteveSpeicher, SamPadgett, Kartik, VincentPhan? , MichaelFiedler, SofiaYeung, BrianSteele

Regrets: SamitMehta, EricRoy, VijayAggarwal, DaveSteinberg, RobertElves

Recurring agenda items:

SteveSpeicher: redesign and updates.

SteveSpeicher mentioned the OSLC-CM mailing list thread on Perl CM consumer.

Main agenda items:

  • OSLC @ Innovate

SteveSpeicher: Integrations center will have 20 connected peds. At least 27 sessions mention OSLC.

Kartik: OSLC Party on Tuesday night, hospitality suite.

  • Community and wiki changes

SteveSpeicher reviewed some of the governance updates for the OSLC community discussed in this blog post:

This also means we'll be getting a new wiki. We might look at drafting a 3.0 spec based on current proposals as part of this move.

  • State predicates follow-up

SamPadgett: Current proposal is in line with resolution of OSLC Core issue about unknown properties and content issue. Requests for state predicates should never result in an error.

Action: Sam will write a draft of some informative text to clarify expected behavior when a provider doesn't support predicates.

SteveSpeicher: We should look at adding this to the test suite.

Review of current scenario.

SamPadgett mentioned some scenarios that also involve cross-domain state transitions (change management of requirements and some CM-to-CM scenarios).

SteveSpeicher: In the past, we've found it helpful to call out what REST calls might be needed for each step to flesh out the design.

BrianSteele: What's automated vs manual? Which system is responsible?

Scenario should be updated to answer open questions.

SamPadgett: Proposed a GET on action URIs for action metadata, including a title and shape.

BrianSteele: Should the shape only include missing or invalid required fields? Discussion of pros and cons of having generic action URIs instead of having an action URI specific to each change request.

Action: Sam will update the state transition draft with a proposal for GET on action URIs.

SteveSpeicher: Next workgroup meeting is canceled since it's during Innovate. We'll meet again in 4 weeks.

-- SamPadgett - 23 May 2012

Topic revision: r2 - 23 May 2012 - 17:16:40 - 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