[Oslc-Automation] Bi-direction Actions/Auto spec dependencies, & action metadata at resource type (shape) level

[John Arwe]

> Which may mean either:
> (1) Core does not provide a way to unambiguously determine which 
> concrete action to use for a given future action

s/to use for/corresponds to/

The linkage is _from_ the instantiated "concrete" action back to the 
future action (from the specific to the generic, if you like).  The 
diagram in Auto 2.1 shows this more clearly than our choice of adjectives 
facilitates ... IIRC there was a Matt Smith Dr Who episode where the 
linguistic complexities of describing time travel came up in a similar 
fashion; if a Time Lord can't figure it out, I give up too.  Look at the 
diagram.

> or
> (2) Core is importing part of the Automation spec (not just the 
> vocabulary) - which may be a bi-directional dependency.

Myself, I don't remember which bit of scenario led to the inclusion of the 
_executes_ predicate in Automation.
I don't remember such requirement from CM 3.0's scenarios (Steve/Sam?).
I don't recall Anamitra's scenarios (what I know of them from offline 
discussions) having any such requirement, but I'm meeting with him later 
today so I'll poke him in the ribs to chime in either way.  His 
code-complete date is past for the thing that's been eating his time.

If this is an Automation-only thing so far, it would be simple enough to 
add a sentence to Core.Future's first non-normative note saying that #1 is 
the case, and if people have that need they might choose to emulate 
Automation's pattern.
If we determine that this is a Core requirement, it would be simple enough 
to logically move in into Core from Automation ... meaning re-use the 
:executes vocabulary term, and define its usage in Core Actions minus the 
part about "the Plan" (let Automation add that onto what Core defines).  I 
don't think Auto 2.1 actually cares that the :futureAction predicate uses 
an AutoPlan as the subject - it just happens to be true that the subject 
will always be of-type AutoPlan because _in the context of the Automation 
spec_ that's the only case of interest.  If Auto 2.1 does care about 
getting to the Plan from the future Action without actually executing the 
action at least once, it's missing a link.

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20140915/19bff5f5/attachment-0003.html>