• Specification Status (OSLC Core changes)
• Request for implementation reports
• Topics for the future

Apologies:

Present DominicTulley, NicholasKruk? , ScottBosworth

BrendaEllis, PaulMcMahan, DaveJohnson

Minutes ScottBosworth - believes that Core has updated the application/xml for Atom XML

Discussion on oslc.properties - being able to do a GET on an oslc.properties - change that from MAY to MUST

Other inconsistencies that need to be addressed - eg SHOULD & MUST for query

Nick - do we need clarification on where resource shape should be used. For example, on query, creation, instance shapes, etc. Scott suggest to leave as general "SHOULD" statement. Creation and Query is more important; instanceShape is perhaps less important. Action on img to clarify that there are differences, and we equally want to apply SHOULD to all of them, and that providers might have different ideas of the relative merits of each.

Action: IanGreen to put together an implementation report. in conjunction with Nick and Graeme.

Updating multi-valued properties - ought to be SHOULD, but the table says "MAY". Ian to investigate and look for a consistent story across the domain specs.

Agreement that IBMers only can't move to future topics.

RM workgorup needs to present thoughts on baselines and what they mean in the context of RM. Action on Ian to email this as topic for thought in advance of next call.. Identification of specific scenarios is essential to be able to communicate outwith the RM workgroup.