index / Automation Meetings / This page

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

Agenda

Chair: Martin

• Issues - see mailing list

  • Automation Specification Version 2.0 Issues
  • Automation Specification Version 2.1 Issues
  • Actions 2.0 Issues
    • See review in main agenda
  • Automation Specification 2.1 Feedback

• Main agenda items:

  • Review 28 August minutes
  • Location of definition “futureActions” predicate and link from concrete actions to the future action they correspond to. Email thread
    • Proposal: Change namespace for new futureActions and executes predicates to be core, leave all other spec locations & text as-is.
  • 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.7.5: literal values for ParameterInstance rdf:value property in fixed body pattern - Email thread
      • Debated by Martin
    • Ian.II.8.1: Complying with multiple profiles simultaneously. - Email thread
      • Proposal: in the Specification profile definitions section we change the language from “Action bindings” (plural) to singular. - John
    • Ian.II.8.2: Identifier for profiles; Ian.II.9.4: Identifier for “standard restrictions” - Ian.
      • Suggestion by Ian & response by Martin; John suggested that allowing them to be URIs raises many questions; Martin proposed that we avoid giving URIs, and avoid any suggestion that they are URIs (i.e. do not use them as link text).
    • Ian.II.7.4: oslc:label & “action dialog” - link in introductory paragraph above resource shape? - Martin
    • RDF/XML - remove requirements. E-mail thread
  • Martin’s List of minor changes from a fresh top-to-bottom read
    • (+1^d by John)
  • Delivering to Core
    • First delivery is to open-services.net Core WG (for 2.x specs).
    • Will then contribute to OASIS TCs, as basis for 3.0 specs.
    • Automation 2.1 has not had any reviews similar to Ian’s for Actions - do we want to request one/chase up someone?
    • When delivering Actions to core, highlight:
      • oslc:action predicate is targeted for the core “common properties” list.
      • Any particular points that might be worthy of being highlighted for final review. e.g. “oslc:action” vs “oslc:affords”; “futureAction” predicate’s name & namespace. (If it’s not too late to change them.)
  • Workgroup business
    • Next meeting?
  • AOB

Actions from previous meetings

None

Minutes

(No meeting was held - the items were discussed via the mailing list: September, October)