This wiki is locked. Future workgroup activity and specification development must take place at our new wiki. For more information, see this blog post about the new governance model and this post about changes to the website.

Date: Wednesday, 31 March 2010

Time: 12:00 PM Eastern, 9:00 AM Pacific, 6:00 PM Zurich (contact SteveSpeicher if you'd like to participate)

Agenda:

  • Call for last minute agenda changes
  • Community News
    • Updates on WG membership
    • Implementation news
  • Review of changes to CmOfRequirements and CmOfRequirementsImpl
  • Review new scenario of CmTaskTracking
  • Progress on 2.0 specs
    • See CmTechnicalPrioritiesV2
    • Proposed change on resource GET: current model is to require all properties to be returned when oslc_cm.properties is omitted. Change would be that it is up to the service provider to determine the optimal set of properties to be returned, which may be all. A consumer can request all by using oslc_cm.properties=*
  • Next meetings:

Minutes:

Attendees: SteveSpeicher, SofiaYeung, SamitMehta, SamLee, BrianSteele, AndreWeinand, RobertElves, DaveJohnson, MarceloPaternostro

Regrets: ScottBosworth, MikKersten

  • Agenda updates: no updates
  • Community News
    • Updates on WG membership -- no updates since last meeting
    • Implementation news --no updated since last meeting
    • DaveJohnson updated on core spec review and please review and provide feedback.
  • Review of changes to CmOfRequirements and CmOfRequirementsImpl
    • Changes pending now, no major changes expected
  • Review new scenario of CmTaskTracking
    • Need to define these task tracking properties as independent vocabularies that can be applied to other resource types: Plans, TestExecution? , ChangeRequests? , etc.
    • Could be a separate resource (node type or inlined) to deal with performance of calculated properties
    • No objections to approach, continue to expand on scenario
  • Progress on 2.0 specs
    • WG agreed to continue to require that doing a GET on a resource URI (without properties param) would return all properties (some system, non-integration properties could be omitted)
    • See CmTechnicalPrioritiesV2
      • Reviewed mutli-valued properties
      • Reviewed state transitions
      • Please review CmComments
  • Next meetings:
Topic revision: r4 - 31 Mar 2010 - 18:13:07 - SteveSpeicher
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Copyright � by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Contributions are governed by our Terms of Use
Ideas, requests, problems regarding this site? Send feedback