[Oslc-Automation] Minor comments to OSLC Automation 2.1
Martin P Pain
martinpain at uk.ibm.com
Thu Oct 23 04:46:05 EDT 2014
My responses/proposals are below. Where I have proposed changes (2, 3 & 4)
could any workgroup members +1 them or suggest improvements. If no
objections or improvements have been heard within a week, I'll consider
> (1) Property "oslc_auto:usesExecutionEnvironment": Assuming an Auto Plan
> more than one execution environments. If such a plan is executed (->
> Request), how will the Service Provider know in which environment the
> Plan should be executed? I assume
> one solution is to specify this as an InputParameter, but maybe it would
> good to mention this in this properties description?
I think Umberto will have to respond to this one
> (2) Property "oslc:futureAction": In the description it says "..will
> available on Auto Results that execute this Plan...". Is this correct?
> Doesn't an Auto Request execute the Auto Plan and the Auto Result only
> represents the state (and final results) of this execution?
I propose changing "Auto Results that execute this Plan" to "Auto Results
that result from execution of this Plan", to make it a bit clearer.
> (3) "Resource: Dialog": I think this part is new in Auto 2.1, and I
> understand why this resource is only for deferred-execution. As far as I
> understood the immediate-execution should be also available via a
> so why isn't this described here at this point as well or split up into
> "Resource: Deferred Exec Dialog" and "Resource: Immediate Exec Dialog"?
That is a bit confusing, you're right. Only the last property in the table
is specific to deferred execution dialogs - I believe the rest apply to
all of them.
I propose changing the introduction to that resource shape to from:
"A deferred-execution creation dialog describes a delegated user interface
(UI) which can be used to allow a user to interactively create a new
Automation Request that is not immediately available for execution.
Dialogs in general are defined by OSLC Core 2.0, and re-used here."
"Dialogs in general are defined by OSLC Core 2.0, and this specification
defines two specific types of dialogs: the _immediate-execution creation
dialog_, which can be used to allow a user to interactively create a new
Automation request which is immediately available for execution, and the
_deferred-execution creation dialog_, which create a new Automation
Request that is not immediately available for execution, but which
requires further work on the part of the consumer. "
Also for the description for the "oslc:usage" property in that shape to be
"An identifier URI for the domain specified usage of this dialog, for
example a deferred execution creation dialog. It is likely that the target
resource will be an oslc_auto:DeferredExecution but that is not
necessarily the case"
"An identifier URI for the domain specified usage of this dialog. For
example, for a deferred execution creation dialog this will be
And change this line in the table:
"Core 2.0 Actions-defined Properties added to Dialog by Automation"
"Core 2.0 Actions-defined Properties added to Dialog by Automation - only
used by the _deferred-execution creation dialog_."
And also append this text to the end of the "oslc:binding" property's
description on that shape:
"This property is only used by the _deferred-execution creation dialog_."
> (4) Section "OSLC Actions and Automation / Discovering actions that will
> executable after an Auto Requ completes": Text says "...If the Auto
> resulted in a new resource being created". -> Wouldn't be a "If the
> execution of an Auto Plan through/ by and Auto Request resulted in a new
The terminology's a little loose here. In a sense the Request does get
"executed", which consists of "executing" the [automated process
represented by the] Plan, with the parameters which were specified on the
Request. If we were sticking with the terminology exactly as it is on the
diagram, your suggestion would be right. However, for the sake of fewer
words, I think changing it to be "If the execution of the Auto Request
resulted in a new resource being created" would suffice.
So I propose changing "If the Auto Request resulted in a new resource
being created" to "If the execution of the Auto Request resulted in a new
resource being created".
Please +1 or suggest improvements,
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Oslc-Automation