Updates on Action Items

• Extent to which adoption of OSLC Core with impact RM scenarios (Simon & Jeremy)
• Feedback on link standardization page (Brenda)

• Discuss data dictionary scenarios. Nicolas Dangeville has created some scenarios around data dictionaries and would like to bring them to OSLC RM for potential inclusion in our work. The scenarios can be found here: RmScenarioDataDictionary.

Specification work

• OSLC Core adoption (Ian)

Minutes

Attendees: IanGreen, PaulMcMahan, SimonWills, BrendaEllis, ScottBosworth, NicolasDangeville, DominicTulley, NickKruk?

SimonWills: looked at the core spec, and guidance documents, guidance and query. Mapped that to the richer scenarios, to see what would
work and what would not.

1. Links document - rather confusing. Critical to get this right (Brenda agreed). Ian commented that this is draft state, and that Simon and Brenda's comments should be taken to the core working group. Scott took action to try to get links on the agenda for a core meeting. Scott emphasised that there is no expectation that a domain would be adopt a single linking pattern across all resources.
2. Core Query. Looked like it meets the needs of RM, with the known exception that it does not support query for resources that do not have links. Simon also expressed concern that a missing piece in the RM resource model is heirarchy (structured organization of requirements) and that query would, in time, need to deal with this structure.

Ian took an action item to get "requirements organization" on our roadmap for post 2.0.

BrendEllis? action item on feedback on the OSLC Link Standardization continutes.

IanGreen reported no progress on the draft V2.0 specification due to other committments. This effort continues.

NicolasDangeville presented the material on RmScenarioDataDictionaries. The presentation give a high-level motivation for the role of data dictionaries. Scott raised the concern that, in the spirit of OSLC, we would like to see a greater interest from the community in assessing the value of these scenarios. Nicholas took an action to develop this motivation further. Another concern (from Ian) was that whilst data dictionaries may appear close to RM initially, there is a risk that more sophisticated scenarios (either DD or RM, or both) would put pressure on the specification to contain both of them. Keeping the specifications distinct would alieviate this risk.