Date: 20 Dec 2012
Time: 7:00 AM Pacific, 10:00 AM Eastern, 3:00 PM UK, 4:00 PM Frankfurt, 5:00 PM Haifa, 8:30 PM Bangalore
Call In Number: (emailed)
Participation request: contact Jim Conallen
- Review current 3.0 issues page
- Discuss recent changes to Diagram resource.
- Define and assign use case scenario details.
* Diagram Resource
* Link Type Predicates
Regrets: Steve Speicher, Sandeep Kholi, Eldad Palachi, Eran Gery, Vishy Ramaswamy, Sandeep Katoch
Atendees: Jean-Louis Marechaux, Uri Shani, Adam Neal, Jim Conallen
Reviewed issues page. The general opinion regarding the partial update support is that it is ok for our domain to not require it as a SHOULD or MUST. We should keep it as it is in the 2.0 spec.
Jean-Louis asked if there was a process or guidance on how workgroups determine what elements of the core are MAY/MUST/SHOULD. In general each workgroup is free to determine the relative importance of a OSLC Core element. It is the workgroup lead and representatives on teh OSLC Core that are responsible for ensure that any decisions made in the AM workgroup are compatible with Core expectations.
Uri was asked to provide some scenarios in the MDD/Transformation area. Perhaps we will re-look at these discussions.
We discussed the need for some scenarios regarding alternate query language support. The issue is not that we need another query language, but rather that if the AM server is managing resources of some domain like UML, and wants to support a more native query language for that domain like OCL, how do we advertise that in the OSLC discovery documents. We need some specific use cases to bring to the core to ask for possible changes/additions to the core discover documents.
Opinions were taken on the use of rdf:List in the oslc_am:PolygonPoint resource. Jim agreed to provide examples with and without it, and provide API examples (using Jena) so we can better evaluate what to recommend.