[Oslc-Automation] Regrets and transition plan details (was: Meeting 17th July)

[Steve K Speicher]

Regrets from me today.

I would like to have this WG discuss its end-of-life plan.  We have the 
OASIS OSLC Automation TC up and operational.   We need to move spec 
development to that TC and be sure we have clear understanding of how that 
happens.  Then this WG can transition to being solely in maintenance mode 
of the finalized specs it already has published.

Note: It is possible in the OASIS TCs to create "draft" specifications and 
park them awaiting some additional validation and feedback (just like we 
do at open-services.net).  Just need to be clear within the work the TC 
does and within the draft specification that is what is going on.

Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> 
http://open-services.net

> From: Martin P Pain <martinpain at uk.ibm.com>
> To: oslc-automation at open-services.net
> Date: 07/17/2014 06:20 AM
> Subject: [Oslc-Automation] Meeting 17th July
> Sent by: "Oslc-Automation" <oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net>
> 
> Agenda: 
http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/AutomationMeetings20140717/
> 
> Issues 
> Automation Specification Version 2.0 Issues 
> None open
> Automation Specification Version 2.1 Issues 
> 1 new - missing futureAction predicate in vocabulary changes appendix.
> Automation Specification 2.1 Feedback
> Main agenda items: 
> Review 12 June minutes 
> Review 26 June minutes 
> Automation 2.1 & Actions 
> Action metadata at resource type/shape level (Scroll down for initial 
email).
> “Availability” 
> Discuss: Make AvailabilityCondition as own type or part of 
AvailabilityResource? 
> Discuss: compoundState - replace with/ additionally introduce 
> consistentState with type boolean (need to ask Jürgen)? 
> Discuss: rto, mttr, mttf - use integer instead of ems:Measure (much more 

> simple)? Remove completely? 
> Discuss: SLA not required for scenarios. Is it obvious that it will be 
> required by most implementors of the spec? Or remove it? 
> Question/ Discuss: Make Redundandy{Group, Member} subclass of 
Availability
> {Group, Resource}. I’m not sure, what is the best solution? 
> Question: Did I get it right to not use 
http://open-services.net/ns/availability
> and instead use http://open-services.net/ns/auto, because I would need 
to 
> request for this URL at OSLC Core? 
> Question: Not sure about consequences of memberOf vs. member (direction 
of 
> linkage between a group and it’s members. 
> Question: How to express in the spec that a service provider should 
define 
> it’s own property values but possibly define a small set of values, that 
are
> enforced (like online/ offline and starting/ stopping for currentState).
> Workgroup business 
> Next meeting?
> AOB
> Martin Pain
> Software Developer - Green Hat
> Rational Test Virtualization Server, Rational Test Control Panel
> OASIS Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration - Automation technical 
committee chair
> 
> E-mail: martinpain at uk.ibm.com
> Find me on: [image removed]  and within IBM on: [image removed] 
> 
> [image removed] 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Automation mailing list
> Oslc-Automation at open-services.net
> 
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20140717/020ba7f0/attachment-0003.html>