• Review action items
  • RmSpecificationNeedsV2
  • Scope of V2
• OSLC RM V2.0 DRAFT Specificaton Feedback (RmSpecificationV2
• OSLC Standardized Link Types DRAFT Feedback (OSLCCoreLinksDRAFT)
• OLSC UI Preview investigation
• AOB

Apologies:

Attendees: IanGreen, DominicTulley, ScottBosworth, JeremyDick, SimonWills, JimConallen, NicholasKruk? , BrendaEllis,

Minutes:We took a tour of the specification needs and there was some discussion. Standardization of link types in particular. It was agreed that scenarios can shed light on the intended meaning of a relationship, and that OSLCCoreLinksDRAFT should not rely solely on "name" as a means of definition. Agreed that user-extensible relationships desirable, but agreeing and developing a catalogue was a good step forward. Brenda took action to write up her feedback on the this link standardisation.

Scott pointed out that domain specs were expected to include in their specifications which of the standardized link types were part of a domain specification; this was agreed. Ian took action to bring the draft up-to-date in this respect (some are currently missing).

Idea is that OSLC Core team will review "domain-specific" relationships with an eye to moving them into Core specification. This would take place during the convergence phase of a specification.

Reiterated that RM spec will not preclude non-OSLC-defined relationships from being present in a resource representation.

General mood was that emphasis on the workgroup to adopt the OSLC Core was a good and necessary step in the development of OSLC RM, and that reduced scenario efforts would necessarily result. Scott emphasised that RM 2.0 should not loose sight of the scenarios it is supporting; Simon/Jeremy took an action to review the OSLC Core and see which of the scenarios that we've considered will either be covered, or partially covered, by RM 2.0. (For example, link standardisation and query do support scenarios we've discussed.)

On adopting Core - agreed that we should not gold-plate the specification. For example, if there is no call for JSON representations, the V2 specification will leave this as a MAY.

All agreed that adoption of OSLC Core should be prime focus of RM 2.0 spec.