Meeting 30th November 2009 (4PM UTC)

1. Specification v1.0
   1. Discuss linking (removed link resources)
   2. Seeking approval from OSLC Architect.
   3. Convergence
      1. Formally require signoff from OSLC Architect
      2. Walk through patent non-assert
2. Specification v2.0 - looking towards 2010
   1. Extend Membership of the workgroup
   2. Specification backlog
      1. Link types
      2. Query
      3. Alignment with other OSLC specifications
   3. Articulate scenarios
      1. Backlog
      2. Traceability analysis
      3. Requirement organisation
      4. Reporting, CM
   4. Other suggestions?

Apologies: SimonWills

Attendees: IanGreen, PratikShah, ScottBosworth, DominicTulley, TorgeKummerow, LachlanMacpherson

Minutes:

Scott: Reporting is likely to figure during next year's scenario work.

Torge: Linking should be a global "service" for all OSLC domains - a global specification. Resources need to have URIs (as they do, currently). Need to have a global query for links (eg give me all links that have such-and-such as endpoint).

Scott: Need to elevate links to x-OSLC; not required for RM 1.0, but of prime concern to RM > 1.0. we need to elevate this to x-OSLC (as we are doing). Would encourage to not delay RM 1.0 specification. Need OSLC leads to offer a date for conclusion for linking topic and how to get public agreement.

All: need to show that there will be continutity beyond the 1.0 specification.

Scott: Cross-displine linkage - OSLC leads might not be appopriate. Can we list the key dependencies? Workgroup members could sit in and report back.

Ian : would like to see more providers. we need action to look at where we could strengthen the workgroup. RM-CM/RM-AM might drive contributors. (Rational C/ALM also.)

Scott: workgroup to brainstorm ISV/customers etc that could be providers/consumers. Eg Sogeti (sp?)

Torge: EU-wide standardization on tooling/process. Action on Torge to pursue contributors from this consortium.

Scott: is there a "simpler" view of RM (eg not high-ceremony) that may be amenable to eg open-source participation?

Scott: could consider a "retrospective" on how things went during 1.0. Estimation groupwrote a primer on what the interaction would be between the tools - Scott viewed this as very valuable.