index / Automation Meetings / This page
Time: 11:00AM Eastern US (Currently 3pm UTC)
Agenda
Chair: Martin
- Main agenda items:
- Specification issues
- Implementation updates
- Review 7 Nov minutes
- Automation 2.1
- Automation Scenarios v2.1 status
- Orchestration Scenarios.
- Waiting for someone (most likely Charles) to be available to 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
- Workgroup business
- Next meeting: 21st November at 11AM Eastern US
- Meeting on 28th November is Europe only due to Thanksgiving in US (likely focused on Availability work)
- Items for later phases/meetings:
- Actions 2.0 - Best practice for inline/referenced resources (or a combination)?
- 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:
- Actions 2.0
- remove requirements (on Actions from Automation) from auto page - duplicated in Core Actions scenarios page - MP/JA
- Generic consumer cases are not on scenarios page. - MP
- Flesh out separation of interaction pattern from restrictions - MP
Minutes
Attending: Martin, Jurgen, Tim, Paul M, Steve, Umberto, John
- Issues:
- #5 - Assigned to JA
- #7 - Assigned to Mike
- Actions
- UI scenarios
- Email doesn’t say “resource not available” for scenario C, it says “action that’s not available”
- MP to move to wiki and correct (and email out)
- UI implementation profile?
- “execute later” is similar to “template” scenario
- is it a creation or selection dialog? or a new type? What does the response mean? Like 200 or like 202?
- placement in spec? In Action spec? “Action dialog”
- will understand more when discussed it more.
- different semantics to creation/selection dialogs as no context for those ones.
- they have a defined context of a service provider.
- they also have an implied context of a “container” of the created/selected resources
- problem with template provider on one provider and creation factory on another.
- JA to send example to mailing list.
- have the scenarios been agreed?
- no. Discussion on mailing list to then accept (or not) next week.
- Availability
- Discussed questions about scenario style. Answers: follow existing styles, unless you can make it significantly clearer by using a different style.
- Workloads (= availability components) can be started and stopped
- JH ran through Availability start/stop scenario
- JH & Tim will compare with other scenarios in Automation area
- UC: Examples of availability resources: Execution environment. TWS agents.
- UC suggested created “exec env” resource. JH disagreed with the terminology.
- This is first Availability scenario - 2-3 more likely, that will flesh out additional details about areas mentioned here.
- Action: Juergen/Tim to update this scenario based on comments during meeting
- Action: Juergen/Tim to post another scenario on wiki for next week
- JA will take a pass through this one for editorial issues.
- Up to chairs to determine if there is agenda time to split meeting again.
Actions resulting from this meeting
- UI scenarios
- Email doesn’t say “resource not available” for scenario C, it says “action that’s not available” - MP to move to wiki and correct (and email out)
- Availability
- Juergen/Tim to update this scenario based on comments during meeting
- Juergen/Tim to post another scenario on wiki for next week
- JA will take a pass through this one for editorial issues.
- Up to chairs to determine if there is agenda time to split meeting again.
