[Oslc-Automation] Automation specification updates + request for outputParameter name suggestions

[Michael F Fiedler]

oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net wrote on 08/09/2012 08:40:27 AM:

> Charles Rankin/Austin/IBM at IBMUS
> Sent by: oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net
>
> 08/09/2012 08:40 AM
>
> To
>
> oslc-automation at open-services.net,
>
> cc
>
> Subject
>
> Re: [Oslc-Automation] Automation specification updates + request for
> outputParameter name suggestions
>
> oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net wrote on 08/08/2012 10:20:52
AM:
>
> > From: Michael F Fiedler/Durham/IBM at IBMUS
> >
> > I've updated the specification with the promised changes related to
> > identification of automation sub-domains in the service provider
document:
> >
> > http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/
> > AutoSpecificationV2#Automation_Provider_Sub_Domains
>
> I thought there was agreement that this would only be specified via
> oslc:usage on the service providers Service resource. The spec still
> indicates it may appear on factories and query capabilities.
>

I went back and reviewed the minutes from the meeting where oslc:usage was
discussed [1] and you are correct.  I have adjusted the specification
wording.

> > and an updated description on the behavior of
oslc_auto:outputParameter:
> >
> > http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/
> > AutoSpecificationV2#Resource_AutomationResult
>
> This looks good.  My only comment would be the last sentence around
> inputParameter still seems to imply that the outputParameter will
> only be there if the input value changed.

I removed the sentence.  It was obsolete in light of the updated
description of outputParameter.

>
> > There has been discussion on the mailing list and in the workgroup
> > around renaming oslc_auto:outputParameter.   I am soliciting
> > suggestions for discussion in this week's workgroup meeting.   So
> > far, I believe we only have two candidates:
> >
> > oslc_auto:outputParameter
> > oslc_auto:executionVariable
> >
> > Other suggestions?   One benefit to outputParameter is the symmetry
> > with the inputParameter attribute, but we could consider a change
> > there as well.
>
> My only other suggestion would be currentParameter, which makes a
> lot of sense while the automation is executing, but loses a bit of
> clarity after the automation has completed.  With the choice of
> outputParameter or executionVariable, I'd go with outputParameter
> for the symmetry.
>
> Charles Rankin_______________________________________________
> Oslc-Automation mailing list
> Oslc-Automation at open-services.net
>
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net

[1] - http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/AutomationMeetings201207119

Regards,
Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20120809/c8ffda10/attachment-0003.html>