[Oslc-Automation] Spec feedback

[John Arwe]

I had a call with one of my implementation owners today, that I'm trying 
to convince to pick up Automation.... on the surface it's a very close fit 
to their needs.  There are a couple of points of hangup however:
(1)  MUST on OSLC Query Syntax.  They simply do not see a need for this in 
their usage scenarios. 
Core has this as a MAY; I propose we weaken Automation to either SHOULD or 
"strongly RECOMMENDED".  We are looking at several implementations this 
year likely to leverage Automation where I see a similar pattern.

(2)  MUST support PUT on Automation Result.  Ditto - not needed.
 I propose we weaken Automation to either SHOULD or "strongly 
RECOMMENDED". 

(3) Direct quote below:
> I see this statement at the beginning: 
> "Automation resources define automation plans, automation requests and 
automation results of the software development, test and deployment 
lifecycle." 
> seems that scope is different from our intended use.  that's a concern.

I think this is clearly just someone reading the informative introduction 
as limiting.  I'm guessing that like most spec owners, we'd all be 
thrilled if Automation was suddenly widely adopted all over the Web, 
including for unanticipated usages.  This is coming from someone who 
"lives" in operations-space; while I can fix this via 1:1 explanations, it 
is a cautionary example of how real people can read things 
not-as-intended.


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20120327/4a5ec219/attachment-0003.html>