OSLC Core Meeting February 2, 2011

Last week's meeting

Link to OSLC Core spec: OslcCoreSpecification

Meeting logistics

How to dial-in to our telecon and login to our screen-sharing session.

Telecon Info

• USA Toll-Free: 888-426-6840
• USA Caller Paid: 215-861-6239
• Participant Code: 6867265#

• Other numbers:
  • https://www.teleconference.att.com/servlet/glbAccess?process=1&accessCode=6867265&accessNumber=2158616239

Online meeting

(when we need it)

• For IBM employees, use the following link:
  • https://lli.ibm.com/meeting/join/?schedid=4446009 (IBM intranet authentication required)
• For people outside IBM, use the following link:
  • https://apps.lotuslive.com/meetings/join?id=4446009

Agenda

• Attachments
  • Dave Johnson will lead a discussion of Attachments and Non-RDF resources in OSLC using the attached PDF presentation.
• SORI progress:
  • Code has been reorganized into 4 modules, instead of 7
  • Docs have been expanded an updated
    • SimpleOslcRi
    • SoriBuildEclipse
    • SoriBuildMaven
• "Distributed Decision Making Process"
  • Can we adopt a 2 step approach and get it into the OSLC process docs on the wiki

Minutes

Attendees and notes from the meeting

Possible Attendees

• DaveJohnson
• ScottBosworth
• BillHiggins
• NickCrossley
• JimConallen
• RobertElves
• SteveSpeicher

Topics discussed

Dave Johnson talked through the slides, getting lots of feedback on each.

There was a little confusion because the discussion was about two separate but related topics: attachments and non-RDF resources

Definition of attachments

There was some disagreement on this topic. Some see an attachment as a resource that is related to another resource and adds supplementary information. Some see an attachment as a special resource that is tightly bound to another resource and adds supplementary information and, for example, when a resource is deleted its attachments should also be deleted.

Attachment approaches

Attachments approach #1. We agree that this approach is "just the web" but not everybody agreed that it is a good approach for attachments. Nick Crossley took exception to allowing a consumer to post an attachment to "any service" and said that approach would not work for SCM.

Attachments approach #2. There was some disagreement on this approach. Jim Conallen pointed out that the Attachment Factory may be be able to extract much information from the posted attachment. Dave Johnson said this was the approach that OSLC Asset Management took but Scott Bosworth objected to that, pointing out that there is a separate descriptor resource for each Artifact that is "attached" to a resource.

Non-RDF resource approaches

Most attachments are non-RDF resources, like images, photos, MSWord docs, etc.

Non-RDF resource approach #1. Jim Conallen agreed that this is the approach taken by OSLC Architecture Management

Non-RDF resource approach #2. Scott Bosworth pointed out that this approach is required for OSLC Asset Management because artifacts may be remote and the service needs to store a descriptor.

Consensus

The approaches are valid for different uses. We need patterns for specific use cases and shouldn't try to generalize too much.

Next steps:

Dave suggested thee use cases and three patterns.

Scott suggested focusing first on the attachments use case