index / Automation Meetings / This page
Time: 11:00AM Eastern US (Currently 3pm UTC, 5pm CET)
- Automation Specification Version 2.0 Issues
- Automation Specification 2.1 Feedback
- “From “outside” the 2.1 draft looks very good, but gets increasingly harder to grasp. I’m a bit concerned that both the automation specification and OSLC as a whole is growing at a speed and in a form, where the original goal of simplicity and sticking to what is necessary for or needed by most applications, is not fulfilled anymore.” - Email 9th May. Response 14th May.
- Main agenda items:
- Review 17 April minutes
- Automation 2.1 & Actions
- OASIS OSLC Core TC assigned reviewers. No feedback yet.
- First draft available. Please read and review.
- Feedback has been discussed on mailing list
- Juergen & Tim - any points from the feedback which are worth discussing on the call
- Issue tracking. The OASIS OSLC Automation TC has a JIRA instance, but presumably we would need to move spec development over there if we wanted to use it.
- Suggestion on mailing list: progress indication
- Workgroup business
Actions from previous meetings
- John - To talk to people in Tivoli for SM about interest in Availability spec.
Martin, Tim, Juergen, John (Partial)
- Approved minutes of meeting on 2014-04-17
- For Availability spec, we agreed to do scenario-driven bottom-up design, only adding terms that are needed by scenarios.
- Looked at minutes from previous meeting:
- Still to do:?
- Would be good to emphasis in the ActionDialog pattern why it is different though:
- Normative sentence saying provider SHOULD wait for action to complete
- Non-normative note saying intended for short-running actions.
- Non-normative note (or clarification of final sentence) saying that instead of returning a URI like a creation or selection dialog does, this dialog returns a verdict (or status) of the action’s execution.
- Minutes approved
- Discussed dcterms:contributor vs oslc:action.
- JH & Tim sounded convinced, but need to read more.
- (Good point to start reading: http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/OSLC-Automation-Primer/#OSLC-Actions)
- Would that make it incompatible with 2.0 consumers? MP - no.
- Joined: John
- Discussed: oslc_avail:AEC. What value types?
- Are there any scenarios that need it? JH/Tim - No.
- JH/Tim: What’s our position on defining terms that aren’t used by specs.
- JA: Vocab definition and spec definition can happen separately. We can put them in a vocab without putting them in the spec. But it’s likely to need re-work anyway, why not just wait? The only reason not to wait would be if it’s difficult to add it later, but it should be very quick to add it later, as long as the WG is available to reach consensus.
- We agreed to do scenario-driven bottom-up design, only adding terms that are needed by scenarios.
- Progress vocab terms:
- Submitting to OASIS: Can non-members contribute via comments list?
- Can they comment on something not “public”/committe draft etc.
- Ask 2.0 providers - are they interested?
- When would Rupert look to implement?
- Doing it could provide goodwill among community/implementors.