HistoryViewLinks to this page 2017 June 7 | 05:32 am


  • Brian King
  • Rainer Ersch
  • Andreas Keis

Agenda / Notes


  • Debbie Edwards still promoting OSLC in IBM tools divisions despite all the changes there.
  • Used to be VP Development Rational.
  • Most development moved to Persistent division.
  • Jazz is the new platform, inter-operability built in.

Rainer’s View

  • Specification Development:
  • This should stay / move to OASIS
  • Reference Implementations:
  • scattered all over the place
  • OSLC site should be the one stop shop to find everything
  • e.g. Lyo examples, github, MS implementations
  • Role of StC:
  • OASIS specs oversight
  • OSLC community oversight
  • We should keep it like this
  • Community Management:
  • With every transition, knowledge got lost
  • Jim Amsden has a lot of knowledge which will be lost when he retires
  • Tasktop is a big contributor, they rely heavily on OSLC. Perhaps they can invest more.
  • Growth has leveled off, stagnant community
  • Difficult getting implementors / users to contribute more to the community

OSLC Position

  • Is it getting weaker? Because IBM is backing off…
  • Never was the case that there was a one stop shop for tools, only perceived
  • Linked data still an abstract idea in many orgs
  • Need to get the message out that OSLC is about more than specifications
  • Seen to be too complex, too academic
  • More of a cultural change, than a tech solution change
  • In some ways, OSLC is ahead of the game – meeting real tools needs in orgs
  • Integration is a HUGE topic for many companies
  • OSLC was always a tools discussion…. still doesn’t express the idea the best
  • But … Falling behind in technical work

Ideas / More Chat

  • Some success stories, Koneksys, Tasktop, PTC, …
  • Use OSLC as a meeting point, to discuss needs
  • NOT tools driven - does not work anymore
  • Stop tech spec development - we are already behind
  • Where does OSLC fit - see whiteboard drawing
  • Artifact is what is being produced by the tool, more important than the tool itself
  • Artifact part was not understood
  • All of it could have been Crystal
  • Pattern = practical use level above the technology
  • Challenge in next 2 years is bringing the value into the real world
  • Position OSLC as unique authority on this topic
  • But .. Failed attempt at pattern working group before
  • And … some specs / implementing work still needed, e.g. for 3.0 specification
  • No group working on the BIG PICTURE for OSLC. Different interests of stakeholders working on different parts than interest them.
  • Should OSLC be used for IoT? We should stick with development.
  • Are OSLC domains still relevant. Can we still rely on them as sponsors? Who is the next generation of advocates / sponsors?
  • Worse case scenario - just sustain what we have right now, publish 3.0.
  • Going beyond that, how can we plant seeds to influence the bigger bubble / ecosystem. We can’t tackle the whole system.
  • Beauty of OSLC is that it is a base for producing your own models
  • Grow on existing bases
  • We need a strong evangelist - this is a full-time job to be done effectively
  • Is more tools supporting it the right way to go?
  • Yes, but it is not solving the foundational problem(s)
  • Each adapter has it’s own model

Bubbles to work on in parallel


  • Pattern
  • Reference Implementations, examples
  • Generic domains
  • Co-operations with other orgs
  • Vendor collaboration
  • Conferences / education / evangelism
  • User groups

How do we do it?

  • Who is ‘we’?
  • How many core people are active and who can we rely on?
  • Let people work on what they are interested in (see bubbles), i.e. where the heat is
  • Core needs to be cleaned up first - this is first step
  • Need to clarify governance, and relationship between OSLC and OASIS
  • Accelerate moving specs to OASIS (hire someone!)


  • Chose from a few orgs that were evaluated - OMG, OASIS, W3C, ….
  • OASIS site looks old, what is the reputation of the org?
  • OSLC is a reference group
  • Can / Should we reference their software infrastructure?
  • How much should we be tied to them? Still need the separation

Site Project Plan - DRAFT

OSLC User Groups (how to proceed)

  • Force an active time frame, and they should be shut down after that period of inactivity
  • Wiki + Slack + Discourse
  • Brian to make a proposal on structure
  • Decouple infrastructure from recruitment

notes from the 2017 OASIS Business Meeting (e-mail from Mark, see attached) - What does TC stand for? TECHNICAL COMMITTEE - responsible for specifications - OSLC is an umbrella TC overseeing multiple specifications - StC part of OASIS, governs overall structure of OSLC at OASIS

Marks comments: Site Data Retention and Migration (e-mail see attached)

  • We’ll try to delay all changes to the new site.

open-services.net mailing list (e.g. memberships reminder; see attached) - Turned off now for communications list - MLs will be shutdown during the transition to the new site. - Maybe OASIS can host list(s) we still need, e.g. communications group - OR - Use Discourse - StC and technical spec groups should be hosted by OASIS.

OASIS OSLC Member Section governance page (see attached e-mail from Jim)

  • Do we have any control over updates to OASIS pages?
  • Carol Geyer was in touch and talked about “plans for OSLC” but did not elaborate. She said she would get back in contact once finished on some other work.
  • Let’s communicate the updates we want to OASIS. - Rainer to send email?
  • Or, Nelson has access.

Kalena leaving (hand-over, status, next steps)

  • Brian now has control of all accounts, should be first point of contact for this moving forward
  • OASIS is taking over payment of site hosting for now (Cathie Mayo)

Overview/status liaison with other organizations

Discuss with Axel Ecosystem Find home on new site Rainer can seed with first 3-4 entries

Overview/status recruiting activities

  • The vendors we want to address
  • Agreement needed on StC level before we proceed

open-services.net URLs to be kept (“ns”, “specifications”, ” http://open-services.net/wiki/steering-committee/OSLC-User-Groups-Reference”, “http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OSLCCoreSpecAppendixA”. …)

Ongoing conversation with Jim Amsden, Nicholas Crossley, Martin Sarabura

4 options:

  1. Try to figure out how to update the current open-services.net site to address the issues with site management, and then try to figure out how the namespace resources were deployed (I can’t find any documentation for that - it will have to be reverse engineered from the site).

  2. Wait until the new open-services.net site if functional and contribute to the development of that site in order to support OSLC namespaces.

  3. Reconsider publishing the namespaces on OASIS so we have a more consistent, stable, long-lived, supported site for managing the content with the rest of the OASIS OSLC resources.

  4. Publish the namespace resources someplace else and handle the redirects, letting the site being developed have some other name, not open-services.net.

  • Leaning towards 3 / 4, having the data and urls at OASIS and having redirects

OSLC.CO (co for community); do we want to own this domain, currently owned by Steve Speicher, redirects to open-services.net

  • ?

Future Direction of the community

  • Where do we want to be in 1, 3, 5 years time?
  • Refer to bubble picture from earlier. We need to prioritise them, as well as see where people’s energy is
  • Final responsibility of StC

Events 2017

Community Funding

  • Over time, IBM has reduced resources
  • Used to have 2 full-time community managers - Steve, Sean Kennedy