[Oslc-Automation] Minutes from this week's meeting

[Martin P Pain]

The minutes from this week's meeting are up. Please check whether there 
are any actions against yourself, and let us know if you weren't expectgin 
them & you're not happy with them:

http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/AutomationMeetings20131031/#Minutes



##Actions resulting from this meeting##

* JA/MF - JA's question about how we address ParameterInstance type in 2.0 
spec. Need feedback from Mike, as he was involved in original 2.0 
discussion. What was the original intent?
* Charles - report on whether he started any write-up about orchestration 
scenarios or not, and whether he thinks there is much to write that would 
add value. (Discuss with MP?)
* Martin - to make sure red/green colours are up-to-date in actions 
scenarios page
* Steve - to edit actions scenarios page or send thoughts to list about 
accurately reflecting CM section
* JA - fix/check images on core actions spec page
* Martin - to come back next week with a proposal regarding identifying 
action profiles, having considered these comments.
* Jurgen & Tim - to join mailing list and be invited to meeting notice
* Jurgen & Tim - to arrange with Umberto & Martin which meeting they will 
kick off the availability work, presenting the scenario, and existing or 
proposed solutions, and the open questions that need to be answered.

##Minutes##

Attending: Umberto, Steve S, Martin P, John A, Jürgen H, Charles

Apologies: Mike F


* JA's proposal to change dcterms:type to rdf:type. MP seconds. Accepted.
* JA pointed out broken links in the spec. Typo error, so already fixed.
* JA's question about how we address ParameterInstance type in 2.0 spec. 
Need feedback from Mike, as he was involved in original 2.0 discussion. 
What was the original intent?
    * TODO
* (MP to create 2.1 issues page)
* Automation template scenarios
    * This is now complete
* Orchestration
    * MP proposes the write-up/paragraph go in the primer
    * JA ok with write-up/paragraph going in primer
    * Accepted
    * TODO: MP to email Charles to see where he got to in looking into it 
before
* Actions
    * TODO Martin to make sure red/green colours are up-to-date
    * TODO Steve to edit page or send thoughts to list about accurately 
reflecting CM section
* Charles joined
* Actions (cont'd)
    * TODO fix/check images on core actions spec page - JA
    * Detection of profile in use:
        * MP investgated, and proposed having a property on the Action 
itself to identify which profiles are in use
            * This makes it considerably simpler for the consumer to 
detect which actions they are compatible with
            * This leaves the necessity to navigate down the levels of 
nesting only to the actinos that are going to be executed, which should be 
orders of magnitude lower than those that are tested for compatibility 
(i.e. all those that need to be listed).
            * This also allows the provider to leave out the request 
resources until the action itself is requested (by a GET on the action's 
URI), which saves data (and processing time) not only for the actions that 
are just listed not executed, but also for the resources where the actions 
are never even checked, which is likely to be yet another order of 
magnitude higher.
        * However, this is redundancy. The profile property could be 
inferred from the presence of an implementation that uses that profile. Is 
it just an optimisation?
        * Which is the "simplest" in spec terms? Does the additional 
property make the spec simpler?
        * How do you reconcile descrepencies between the additional 
property and the definitive description of the action's requests? Can they 
be required by a MUST in the spec, meaning discrepencies are 
non-conformance with the spec? Is that practical?
        * There is no link in the RDF between the identifier for the 
profile and the request that it describes. Wouldn't it make more sense for 
the identifier for the profile to be on the request that it relates to?
        * TODO MP to come back next week with a proposal having considered 
these comments.
* Availability in Auto WG.
    * Start with same meetings, break out once more time needed
    * Use same mailing list - context shuold be obvious from email content
    * TODO Jurgen & Tim to join mailing list and be invited to meeting 
notice
    * TODO Jurgen to arrange with Umberto & Martin which meeting they will 
kick off the availability work, presenting the scenario, and existing or 
proposed solutions, and the open questions that need to be answered.



Kind regards,

Martin Pain
Software Developer - Green Hat
Rational Test Virtualization Server, Rational Test Control Panel
Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration - Automation WG joint chair

E-mail: martinpain at uk.ibm.com
Find me on:  and within IBM on:  




IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20131031/04401b40/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 518 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20131031/04401b40/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1208 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20131031/04401b40/attachment-0001.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 360 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20131031/04401b40/attachment.gif>