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: April 14 2010


  • Actions from previous meeting
    • Created QmImplementationReports for QM 1.0 implementation reports
    • Announced 2.0 specification effort on the community mailing list
    • Created QmScenariosV2 for V2 scenario discussion (more later)
    • Set V2 target date July 19 2010 (tentative, for discussion)
    • Created QmSpecificationCovenantV2 for capturing V2 IP covenants
    • Meeting with ScottFairbrother, PaulMcMahan, SamitMehta to discuss industry workgroup participation
      • Tieto is interested in continued participation
      • Scott has some other contacts in mind
  • OSLC Core (OslcCore)
Scope Proposed Outline Initial Draft Spec Start Convergence Finalize Spec
February 17 2010 February 24 2010 March 1 2010 April 14 2010 April 28 2010


Attendance: PaulMcMahan, NigelLawrence, TonyDavies? , MichaelPena, DaveSteinberg, DaveJohnson, ScottBosworth, MarceloPaternostro

  • Reviewed action items
  • Discussed potential work group participation from other companies. ScottFairbrother is engaging with some specific contacts and may have an update at the next work group meeting.
  • Core specification
    • DaveJohnson helped explain "common" vs. "core" designation. The core specification is focused on the essential interfaces that serve as a basis for all lifecycle management providers. OSLC also provides guidance on common architectural considerations such as reporting.
    • Core spec will actually remain in convergence past 4/28 to allow more time for adoption and feedback from OSLC domain groups
    • Work group is strongly encouraged to review core spec and provide feedback in the wiki by next week. QM V2 intends to implement the core spec.
  • QM V2 scenarios
    • CALM and traceability scenarios -- QM work group needs more input to determine which of these scenarios are most relevant and high profile across the OSLC community
      • Action PaulMcMahan to gather more input about these scenarios from OSLC leadership and other working groups such as RM and Automation
    • Reporting and Execution scenarios -- QM work group has good experience in this area and can start to craft scenarios for further discussion
      • work group should define reporting scenarios for both live and historical reports since these two types of scenarios have important differences
      • NigelLawrence has some experience with IEEE specification of ATML that may help define execution resources
      • MarceloPaternostro has test related UML models that may help communicate and discuss the execution scenarios
Topic revision: r4 - 16 Apr 2010 - 20:59:29 - PaulMcMahan
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