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

Thu Feb 28 15:56:48 EST 2013

Sounds great.  Yes please do add me to the recurring invite.

Best wishes,
Paul McMahan
IBM Rational

Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM wrote on 02/28/2013 03:26:05 PM:

> From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM
> To: Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> Cc: oslc-cm at open-services.net
> Date: 02/28/2013 03:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change
> request"-like resources
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> The WG had a healthy discussion around this but thought it would be
> good to have a review with you on the con call.  I personally may
> not be able to meet the next 2 meetings.  So...either you all can
> carry on without me, we can schedule another time or just stick to email.
>
> Kept it own list in case others want to join the discussion.  Also
> you want to be a regular on the CM WG?
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Speicher
> IBM Rational Software
> OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
http://open-services.net
>
> Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM wrote on 02/22/2013 05:42:52 PM:
>
> > From: Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM
> > To: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> > Cc: oslc-cm at open-services.net
> > Date: 02/22/2013 05:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change
> request"-like resources
> >
> > 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 artifactsuch
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
> > > > > >