[oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change request"-like resources

Paul McMahan pmcmahan at us.ibm.com
Fri Feb 22 17:42:52 EST 2013 

Thanks Steve.  Some response inlined..

Best wishes,
Paul McMahan
IBM Rational

Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM wrote on 02/21/2013 01:51:58 PM:

> From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM
> To: Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> Cc: oslc-cm at open-services.net
> Date: 02/21/2013 01:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change
> request"-like resources
>
> Thanks Paul,
>
> Some responses inlined...
>
> Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM wrote on 02/08/2013 01:29:47 PM:
>
> > From: Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM
> > To: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> > Cc: oslc-cm at open-services.net
> > Date: 02/08/2013 02:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change
> request"-like resources
> >
> > QualityManagementTask is a change request for creating or updating a
test
> > artifact, often in response to a change in some other artifact such as
a
> > requirement or plan item.   QualityManagementTasks are also used to
track
> > the setup and preparation of test environments.  This often involves
> > procurement and installation of hardware/software, creating data pools,

> > creating virtualized services, provisioning test images in the cloud,
etc.
> > Think of QualityManagementTask as a ChangeRequest of special interest
to
> > quality management processes.   Much like the RequirementsChangeRequest

> > mentioned in your proposal could be seen as a ChangeRequest of special
> > interest to requirements management processes.
> >
>
> Perhaps we can look at a couple of other questions here:
>
> 1. What scenarios need to look at the type of resource to know it is
> specifically a QMTask to do things differently?

A few examples :

-  A dashboard view or similar type of view showing QMTasks that are used
to track workflow and dependencies between test team members who
collaborate on the construction of test artifacts and test environments.

-  An OSLC deployment automation provider that is polling for QMTasks so
that it can automate the preparation of (often virtualized) test
environments.

-  When a requirement or plan item that is linked to a test case changes
that test case may need to be updated to ensure proper coverage.  The test
case is marked as "suspect" and a QMTask is linked to the test case to bind
together the appropriate resources and track resolution of the suspicion.
This QMTask is unique in a way among other types of change requests because
it often means that a test artifact needs to be checked (and might? need to
be changed) vs. something like a defect where action is definitely needed
(assuming it is valid).

In my experience working on Jazz based products, one interesting thing
about QMTasks is that they are typically maintained separately from other
types of change requests.  The set of users they are assigned to is often
disjoint from other types of change requests (testers vs. developers), they
have different process/workflow, and the are usually provided by a separate
ServiceProvider (a provider of "Quality Tasks" in Jazz administration
terminology).


> 2. What additional properties would a QMTask have from a generic Task?
>
> > ReviewTask is a request to review or approve an artifact, typically
> > resulting in its status being changed to 'reviewed', 'approved',
'rejected',
> > etc.   The review process/workflow can often span across multiple OSLC
> > domains.   For example the review process for a test artifact can also
> > involve the review process for the requirements or plan items linked to
it.
> > Think of ReviewTask as a ChangeRequest that helps track the people and
> > processes involved in preparing a lifecycle artifact for use.
> >
>
> We do have a number of scenarios that call our for a "Review" type
> of resource.  Perhaps we (speaking with my CM hat on) can define
> what we need and socialize it to more (Core, RM, QM, etc) who may
> have a need for this review.  Also, approvals are a close cousin of
> review....do you see this as well?

Yes!  I can think of real world scenarios where a review or approval needs
to span across resources in multiple domains.

> > Maybe including the "Task" suffix in the names of these proposed new
> > subtypes is misleading, since I agree it leaves you with an impression
that
> > they are just specializations of Task.   But I think that these
subtypes are
> > at least as distinct as the other proposed subtypes (Defect, PlanItem,
> > RequirementChangeRequest).   So maybe different names would help -
> > QualityManagementChangeRequest and ReviewRequest ?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Paul McMahan
> > IBM Rational
> >
> > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM
> > To: Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> > Cc: oslc-cm at open-services.net
> > Date: 02/07/2013 01:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change
> request"-like resources
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > Could you provide a bit more detail (scenario) of why these specific
types
> > of resources are needed and a simple "Task" is not enough?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Steve Speicher
> > IBM Rational Software
> > OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
http://open-services.net
> >
> > Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM wrote on 11/29/2012 02:14:57 PM:
> >
> > > From: Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM
> > > To: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS,
> > > Cc: oslc-cm at open-services.net, "Oslc-Cm" <oslc-cm-bounces at open-
> services.net>
> > > Date: 11/29/2012 02:15 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change
> request"-likeresources
> > >
> > > +1,  I would also like to suggest QualityManagementTask and
> ReviewTask as well.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Paul McMahan
> > > IBM Rational
> > >
> > > "Oslc-Cm" <oslc-cm-bounces at open-services.net> wrote on 11/29/
> 2012 01:48:16 PM:
> > >
> > > > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> > > > To: oslc-cm at open-services.net
> > > > Date: 11/29/2012 01:48 PM
> > > > Subject: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change request"-
> > > > like resources
> > > > Sent by: "Oslc-Cm" <oslc-cm-bounces at open-services.net>
> > > >
> > > > Currently, the CM 2.0 defines only 1 rdf:type of resource and
> we all know
> > > > and love that as oslc_cm:ChangeRequest.
> > > >
> > > > There are many other "kinds" of change requests, today we help
> guide some
> > > > scenarios that are looking for these kinds of resources by using
> > > > oslc:usage with some known values [1],[2].
> > > >
> > > > Not having these usage identifiers be rdf:types has always
> been a little
> > > > odd, for a number of reasons:
> > > > - Typical way of querying and inferring the type of resource relied
on
> > > > non-standard ways
> > > > - Associating dialogs, factories, queries without these type
> is a bit off.
> > > >
> > > > We've already proven the need for these usage/type things.  Sothe
names
> > > > (ids) and concepts are still valid.
> > > >
> > > > My proposal:
> > > >         In 3.0, introduce these as additional subtypes
(rdfs:subClassOf
> > > > oslc_cm:ChangeRequest) as first class OSLC-CM resource types:
Defect,
> > > > PlanItem, Task, RequirementsChangeRequest.
> > > >
> > > > [1] -
> > > > http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-cm_open-services.net/2010-
> > > > June/000172.html
> > > > [2] -
> > > > http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/
> CmSpecificationV2#Usage_Identifiers
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Steve Speicher
> > > > IBM Rational Software
> > > > OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
> > > > http://open-services.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Oslc-Cm mailing list
> > > > Oslc-Cm at open-services.net
> > > > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-cm_open-services.net
> > > >

More information about the Oslc-Cm mailing list