HistoryViewLinks to this page 2014 September 12 | 09:47 am

index / Automation Meetings / This page

Time: 11:00AM Eastern US (Currently 3pm UTC, 5pm CET)


Chair: Martin

  • Issues - see mailing list

  • Main agenda items:

    • Review 21 August minutes
    • Actions 2.0 Review by Ian
      • Responses by Martin: Part II Sections 4-6, Sections 7-9 (Older: Part I, Part II (1-3))
      • (Ian.II.7.4: oslc:label & “action dialog”)
      • Ian.II.7.5: literal values for ParameterInstance rdf:value property in fixed body pattern
      • Ian.II.8.1: Complying with multiple profiles simultaneously.
      • Ian.II.8.2: Identifier for profiles
      • Ian.II.9.4: Identifier for “standard restrictions”
      • Issues Martin proposes we don’t address (as it would generate too much work or wouldn’t bring enough benefit): Ian.II.7.2 (WGs MUST talk to Core), Ian.II.9.1 (uniqueness of property values in Appendix A), Ian.II.9.2 (Content-Type in Appendix A), Ian.II.9.3 (requestURI literal allowed? - covered by 7.3). Any objections? Anyone want to +1 any of these points?
    • “Availability”
    • Workgroup business
      • Next meeting?
    • AOB

Actions from previous meetings

None What is intent of this section? Supposed to copy uncompleted actions from prior meeting?



Tim Friessinger, John Arwe, Martin Pain

Resolutions passed

  • Approved amended minutes of meeting on 2014-08-21; amendment is now live.
  • 7.4: currently have link from IP to results shape, will add corresponding back link
    • 2014-09-12: Changes live
  • 7.5: Arwe to start email thread with proposal for rewording
  • 8.1: Start email thread with proposal(s)
  • 8.2: Ian to clarify with a concrete example that would address his comment


Review Meeting Minutes 2014/08/21: Approved with one correction: “non-informative” change to “non-normative” on 6.6. No objections.

Main agenda Actions 2.0

Ian not available, let’s at least get WG opinion on resolution and let Ian chime in with agreement/dissent.

Proposal 7.4: Ian’s comment is incorrect (dialog was intentional); currently have link from IP to results shape, will add corresponding back link

Proposal 7.5:

  • comment refers to fixed-body IP … IP says resource (only), shape allows resource or literal, so there is a mismatch
  • The Execution section of Fixed Body is currently written “mostly” assuming the rdf:value object is a resource, but intent was to allow either resource or literal.
  • In both cases, need to say how content type might be arrived at.
  • Instead of drafting new text during meeting, Arwe to start thread on it today.

Proposal 8.1:

  • Martin email, Aug 000816 in archives, provided initial response
  • Martin… partic bindings can meet a given profile’s constraints, but for a partic provider to comply with the profile ALL of its actions must have at least one compliant. … this is the “Using spec profiles” heading, first MUST.
    • a: “created” is unfortunate choice of words
    • b: says Actions today, but each binding could be off a sep provider, need to account for that
    • c: need to clarify our intent
  • Martin proposes adding sentence to that paragraph (1st para in this section: http://open-services.net/wiki/core/Exposing-arbitrary-actions-on-RDF-resources/#Using-specification-profiles) saying that if one provider wants to comply with multiple profiles, it can expose multiple bindings on a single action.
  • wrt (b) above, clients actually care that a point in time snapshot of the Action rather than what provider contributed each piece part, which is covered in the profile def section (compliance of an action binding).
  • discussion leads to conclusion that “comply” may not be the right concept here…wandering into confusion stemming from using “compliance” to talk about Actions 2.0 and separately about “with a profile” …too easy to conflate the two scopes. would like to have some label so a provider consistently exposing bindings for a given profile can communicate that to clients/buyers.
  • Need a email thread; stop trying to solve it in this mtg ;-)
  • Martin: we mention profiles in final sentence of “what consumers need to know”. wonder out loud if each IP section should link to it, since not every IP is required by every profile. make it less scary for new folks. trying to simplify implementations with profiles, now that specs have been simplified.

Proposal 8.2

  • not sure what he’s after, perhaps a shortname … maybe Ian can suggest a concrete example
  • Martin maybe e.g. Profile: “post-resource-shape” POST RDF described by a OSLC Resource Shape to the Action resource or Profile: “post-action-resource-uri” POST RDF described by a OSLC Resource Shape to the Action resource

Next meeting: +3 weeks (2014/08/18) … WG to keep discussion moving on the email list.