index / Automation Meetings / This page
Time: 11:00AM Eastern US (Currently 3pm UTC)
Agenda
Chair: Umberto
- Main agenda items:
- Specification issues
- Implementation updates
- Review 24 oct minutes
- Automation 2.1
- Updated documents to “2.1” from “postv2”/”v.next”
- Automation Scenarios v2.1 status
- Nothing to discuss on: Automation Template Scenarios done, apart from:
- New oslc:usage URI for template creation dialogs - #templateCreation has been updated to #TemplateCreation
- Umberto to confirm if this is completed
- Temporary deployment scenarios being covered by “Actions” work.
- Orchestration Scenarios.
- MP proposes that we include the previously-discussed write-up of how 2.0 resources can be used for orchestration scenarios, despite the gap Charles identified. Also that we explicitly state that gap, and encourage implementers who have concrete orchestration scenarios to contact the WG/TC.
- “Actions” work in Core:
- Availability work
- Martin & Umberto to report on how they want to proceed.
- Workgroup business
- Next meeting: 7th November at 11AM Eastern US
- Items for later phases:
- Vocab document 2.1 update - New oslc:usage URI for template creation dialogs
Actions from last meeting not covered by agenda
All covered in agenda
Actions carried over/not yet due:
None
Minutes
Attending: Umberto, Steve S, Martin P, John A, Jürgen H, Charles
Apologies: Mike F
- JA’s proposal to change dcterms:type to rdf:type. MP seconds. Accepted.
- JA pointed out broken links in the spec. Typo error, so already fixed.
- JA’s question about how we address ParameterInstance type in 2.0 spec. Need feedback from Mike, as he was involved in original 2.0 discussion. What was the original intent?
- (MP to create 2.1 issues page)
- Automation template scenarios
- Orchestration
- MP proposes the write-up/paragraph go in the primer
- JA ok with write-up/paragraph going in primer
- Accepted
- TODO: MP to email Charles to see where he got to in looking into it before
- Actions
- TODO Martin to make sure red/green colours are up-to-date
- TODO Steve to edit page or send thoughts to list about accurately reflecting CM section
- Charles joined
- Actions (cont’d)
- TODO fix/check images on core actions spec page - JA
- Detection of profile in use:
- MP investgated, and proposed having a property on the Action itself to identify which profiles are in use
- This makes it considerably simpler for the consumer to detect which actions they are compatible with
- This leaves the necessity to navigate down the levels of nesting only to the actinos that are going to be executed, which should be orders of magnitude lower than those that are tested for compatibility (i.e. all those that need to be listed).
- This also allows the provider to leave out the request resources until the action itself is requested (by a GET on the action’s URI), which saves data (and processing time) not only for the actions that are just listed not executed, but also for the resources where the actions are never even checked, which is likely to be yet another order of magnitude higher.
- However, this is redundancy. The profile property could be inferred from the presence of an implementation that uses that profile. Is it just an optimisation?
- Which is the “simplest” in spec terms? Does the additional property make the spec simpler?
- How do you reconcile descrepencies between the additional property and the definitive description of the action’s requests? Can they be required by a MUST in the spec, meaning discrepencies are non-conformance with the spec? Is that practical?
- There is no link in the RDF between the identifier for the profile and the request that it describes. Wouldn’t it make more sense for the identifier for the profile to be on the request that it relates to?
- TODO MP to come back next week with a proposal having considered these comments.
- Availability in Auto WG.
- Start with same meetings, break out once more time needed
- Use same mailing list - context shuold be obvious from email content
- TODO Jurgen & Tim to join mailing list and be invited to meeting notice
- TODO Jurgen to arrange with Umberto & Martin which meeting they will kick off the availability work, presenting the scenario, and existing or proposed solutions, and the open questions that need to be answered.
Actions resulting from this meeting
- JA/MF - JA’s question about how we address ParameterInstance type in 2.0 spec. Need feedback from Mike, as he was involved in original 2.0 discussion. What was the original intent?
- Charles - report on whether he started any write-up about orchestration scenarios or not, and whether he thinks there is much to write that would add value. (Discuss with MP?)
- Martin - to make sure red/green colours are up-to-date in actions scenarios page
- Steve - to edit actions scenarios page or send thoughts to list about accurately reflecting CM section
- JA - fix/check images on core actions spec page
- Martin - to come back next week with a proposal regarding identifying action profiles, having considered these comments.
- Jurgen & Tim - to join mailing list and be invited to meeting notice
- Jurgen & Tim - to arrange with Umberto & Martin which meeting they will kick off the availability work, presenting the scenario, and existing or proposed solutions, and the open questions that need to be answered.
