[oslc-core] Attachments

[Steve K Speicher]

> From: Martin Nally/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> 
> To me this sounds like there is not a sufficiently compelling reason to
> specify anything new, beyond perhaps explaining how Dave's non-design 
can
> be applied to attachments. How would we poll the stakeholders to test 
that
> assertion?

Agree that we should strive to not specify anything new but in some cases, 
perhaps like this, illustrate how it can be done with nothing new (as it 
appears to be a repeating theme in CM, Asset, RM, QM, etc).

Various WG leads, including myself, have taken the action to work within 
their WGs to further elaborate on their scenario and spec needs around 
attachments.  In CM, I'm working with the various WG members who expressed 
interest in this.  We have not completed this assessment and it doesn't 
rank at the top of our WGs priorities at the moment.

>   |Nick Crossley/Irvine/IBM              |
>
> BTW, the SCM domain does not currently define or use attachments.  My
> examples of attachments that had dependent life cycles came primarily 
from
> the CM domain, with attachments to change requests.

In CM we have scenarios that call out the usage of attachments to existing 
resources (Change Requests).  These scenarios are being prioritized and 
then elaborated.  We will report back when completed. Though it is hard to 
have this conversation without the context of these integration scenarios.

Thanks,
Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645