Reviewed and agreed to RESOLVED on spec issues answered since last workgroup meeting
Discussed relatedChangeRequest relationship properties. Should the spec use dcterms:relation instead? The workgroup like the idea of a general purpose relationship property such as this. But it is already defined in core so its available to service providers without necessarily including it in the QM spec. If later we find that it is needed for some particular scenario then we can explicitly add it to the QM spec.
executablePath property of TestScript. Why isn't it a relationship property? Main reason is because its value might be any type of identifier and maybe not a valid URI. For example UNC pathname.
AI: PaulMcMahan to investigate using a relationship property and resolve WI
Discussed new property of TestExecutionRecord -- oslc_qm:configuration. Its purpose is to reference environment information (OS, hardware, etc) but does not specify a Range. Leaving Range unspecified rather than defining some new QM resource for allows adoption of future OSLC specification for configuration. This seems important since the concept of environment/configuration will probably span several domains (automation, change, etc).
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