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.

OSLC Core Meeting March 23, 2011

Previous 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#

Online meeting

(when we need it)

Agenda

Item: POST by Query

Item: Community news

  • Progress in OSLC Tools
  • Progress on OSLC Primer
  • Other community news?

Item: Change Log

http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/IndexingProposals

Issue summary

  • Move Change Log specification to wiki format
  • Move issues to OSLC "issues" format
  • Allow request to specify date range - consensus: not yet
  • Order of if events is important - consensus: yes
  • Use dc:date instead of oslc:at - consensus: yes
  • Use normal OSLC paging technique - consensus: yes

  • Is CLM an OSLC term
  • Don't define indexable resources
  • Allow Change Events to be resources?
  • More general term for Indexing Profile?
  • Names for oslc:create, oslc:update and oslc:delete
  • If we have order, do we need date?

Minutes

Attendees and notes from the meeting

Attendees

Attended:

  • Steve Speicher
  • Frank Budinsky
  • Jim des Rivieres
  • Dave Steinberg
  • Marcelo Paternostro
  • Arthur Ryman
  • Mike Leoffler
  • Ian Green
  • John Arwe
  • Bill Higgins

Regrets:

  • Jim Conallen
  • Nick Crossley

Topics discussed

AI: Dave and Frank: get proposal into Wiki format

AI: Dave and Frank: get issues into standard issue format

Frank review issues on Indexing Proposal page

Item #1: collaborative lifecycle management is an OK term to use, CLM acronym unnecessary

Item #2: Indexable Resource, need way to mark pages as indexable

  • Arthur: HTML pages are not marked like so, but there is a robots.txt file that guides search engines
  • Arthur: Have we designed extensions to Service docs to enable indexing
  • Frank: We have the notion of a Indexing Profile (need new name), we ask for:
    • One or more query capability
    • One change log for those capabilities
  • Jim: this ties the indexing profile, change log etc. to a full-blown OSLC provider, can we decouple?
  • Frank: seems like a good idea, way to take service provider, register self as listener on service provider
  • Jim: protocol must support needs of indexer, not just be a simple observer. Needs to enumerate everything, all resources
  • Arthur: standards orgs start with a set of requirements for a spec, need to state use cases, then verify that spec meets use case requirements
  • Arthur: this is really a notification spec
  • Ian: how far can we take this decoupling? different providers might have resources in different security contexts.
  • Jim: make it so implementing indexing has very low barrier to entry
  • Dave: do we state what should happen if you do get on a query base URI with no query string at all?
  • Arthur: yes, you get back everything, or redirect to first page of everything
  • Arthur: if we decouple from query, then we need to re-invent it
  • Jim: we really need to take this opportunity to decouple, we can couple to format?
  • Jim: could be good to have single URL for change log, and then way to get all resources in world
  • Arthur: not all, but all in scope of change log
  • Jim: yes

Frank: we need to have a follow-up next week

AI: Dave to get meeting on schedule

Item #3: Name for Indexing Profile?

  • Ian: Change Log profile
  • Arthur: Notification profile
  • Jim: those names do not mention need for enumerating all resources in scope
  • Jim: something that enumerates all resources is not change log design center
  • AI: Frank will start email thread on this, we need better name here

Item #4: Namespace

  • Consensus is that Change Log should be in separate namespace from Core
  • Frank: leaving this open for now

Item #5: Naming for change events

  • Frank: are we OK with Creation, Deletion, Update, etc. since we will have our own namespace
  • Consensus is: OK
  • Jim: is there value in enumerating those values?
  • Frank: the value of Deletion is obvious, need it to keep index up to date
  • Frank: Creation and Modification are tricky, and are both essentially the same to use
  • Frank: Yes, there is value or at least no harm in Create / Update distinction
Topic revision: r5 - 23 Mar 2011 - 16:30:47 - DaveJohnson
 
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