Time: 11:00AM Eastern US (Currently 4pm UTC)

Agenda

• Main agenda items:
  • Specification issues
    • Automation Specification Version 2.0 Issues
      • Set Post-finalization #4 to RESOLVED, as we have accepted the proposal for information to be added to the primer.
      • Any new?
  • Implementation updates
    • Open forum for implementers to provide updates
    • Summarize any new implementation reports
  • Review 19 September minutes
  • Automation V.next (Post-V2)
    • Automation Scenarios V3 status - Topics TBD based on attendance. Possibilities include:
      • Scenario issues
        • Temporary deployment scenarios
          • Current proposal
          • Waiting for offline conversation on Actions to converge. Then: Get this documented with examples
        • Orchestration Scenarios.
          
          • Agreed to shelve in 29 August meeting
          • TODO: Document how an some orchestration scenarios can be achieved with existing artifacts + current teardown and template scenarios + Update scenarios page
        • Automation Template Scenarios. Discuss scheduling scenarios around this.
    • Schedule for convergence/finalisation?
    • Documents:
      • TODO: V.next draft specification
      • Primer: are we having a primer per version, or a single primer that deals with all versions?
      • TODO: Integrate Proposal for Automation terminology guidance into primer
  • Workgroup business
    • Workgroup ownership - conference call participant code will change
    • Next meeting: 2nd October at 11AM Eastern US

Minutes

Attending: Michael Fiedler, Paul, Martin Pain, Umberto, John Arwe, Charles Rankin

• Accepting last week’s minutes
• Teardown/actoins
  • MP to flesh out how we would apply actions to teardown.
  • Where do actions go? Core?
    • Core needs 2 other domains to explot it before it can converge.
  • Actions discussion is discussing whether to use W3C’s HTTP-in-RDF vocab. But that vocab is in working draft. But it’s target is a note not a rec anyway. There is a risk that it changes. Do we take that risk? There ar emultiple uses of it, so it’s a very small risk. Do we consider it not a risk because of this?
  • Actions that can have multiple equivalent implementations. Impls include AutoPlans, POST/PUT/PATCH with resource shape-described body or with static body. Auto WG would have AutoPLans as a baseline requirement.
  • MP to create draft proposal. (Start with teardown example aplication). Focus on communication to stakeholders, not spec proposal.
  • JA to look at & add to.
  • MF to look over to check its consumable.
  • Ask SS or Sam P to do CM version
• Orchestration
  • Charles to write up? Confirm with him. Get a date?
  • Maybe in primer? Maybe separate doc?
• Templates - Umberto
  • New oslc:usage value for creation dialogs.
  • Dialog returns URI to template representation
  • The data can be included in the URI to avoid storing the resource on the provider, if needed.
  • Automation or Core? Put it in Automation and see if other people want it.
  • Namespace? Suggested “oslc”. But also suggested that it’s a workaround for a problem in auto, so perhaps belongs in “oslc_auto”.
  • Put in spec (normative) that using a dialog with this usage doesn’t execut the request.
    • This specificity makes it more suitable for auto
  • Possibly http://open-services.net/ns/auto#templateCreation for oslc:usage.
  • Umberto to update spec with this. Flag “This is new for 2.1” at beginning of new section.
• Timescale
  • MP to report his desired timescale next week
  • Umberto wants to be in finalisation by end of calendar year.
  • Convergence when we feel ready for people to start doing implementations.
  • Allow some time for outsider view. Inform core at each transition - this may invite extra attention & feedback. Leave time for this. Min 2 weeks for each of those stages.
• V.next spec:
  • MF to inform new chairs about update contributors, licence terms for new spec.
  • Change highlighting? MF to follow up on any good ways to track the changes.
• Primer
  • Add new section to existing primer for 2.1, not new document.
  • MP to integrate terminology proposal into primer.

Actions