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 July 28, 2010

Meeting logistics

See the OslcCoreMeetings for more information, more dial-in numbers and on-line meeting information.

  • Conference Access
    • Toll free: 1-866-423-8350
    • Toll: 1-719-387-8273
  • Participant passcode: 558663

Agenda

  • Finalization!

  • Next topics? Candidates:
    • Link Guidance
    • Partial Update Guidance
    • Representation Guidance

Minutes

Notes from the meeting... TBD

Attendees

Topics discussed

  • Status

  • Issues from mailing list
    • Using URIs for all identifiers, pros and cons
    • Scott: do we really want a URI for every constant we define? we're not doing this elsewhere
    • Arthur: this is the RDF/LinkedData way, use URIs for identifiers
    • Decision for oslc:occurs: use URIs and Arthur's values
    • Decision for oslc:usage use URIs

  • oslc:isMemberProperty
    • Dave: the JSON oslc:results and oslc:isMemberProperty are part of same issue
    • Dave: we took out oslc:isMemberProperty when we simplified shapes, but we went too far
    • Dave: adding it back will solve the JSON issue that Steve pointed out
    • Arthur / Tack: isMemberProperty is needed for a generic query client
    • Add issue: how do we do this in JSON? need to update guidance
    • Scott / Steve: expressed some concern about how oslc:isMemberProperty is supposed to work
    • Decision add oslc:isMemberProperty back to shapes

  • Finalization:
    • Dave: I'd like to enter finalization
      • From this point on: corrections and clarifications only
      • Core spec documents should only be edited by myself and one designate
      • Go "final" when we have final domain specs, implementations, etc.
    • Tack: when is the spec to be final?
    • Dave: no specific date, but this should not hold up other specs or implementations
    • Arthur: we should also have some interoperability testing before going final
    • Mike: we need an open reference implementation
    • Scott: yes, that is where we should be
    • Steve: we do review implementation reports in the workgroups
    • Dave: do we need RI for each domain, or just for Core spec?
    • Dave: we need an RI, but there is no hard requirement to have one before Core becomes truly "final"
    • ...
    • Dave: we have hereby entered finalization!
    • ...
    • Dave: Thanks to everybody on the workgroup for their great ideas, participation and hard work.
  • Dave: next up - closing on our guidance documents, we talk about that next week.
  • Arthur: we need new presentation that covers the core spec
Topic revision: r4 - 30 Jul 2010 - 13:25:08 - 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