Agenda

Meeting 5th October 2009 (3PM UTC)

• Specification progress
  • Performance concerns (Matt)
• • Delegated Creation UI: added
  • Requirement Factory: added.
    • Requirement Factory: Discuss use of RM service document hierarchy as a way of creating requirements in a known place. Systems organise requirements differently (for example, RRC puts them in folders, DOORS into a module). How can we deal with this when we want to programmatically create requirements using a factory? I propose to use the service document to do this. I'd like to discuss and move this forward.
  • Review all OPEN and UPDATED issues in the register and attempt to CLOSE them.

Minutes

Apologies: AndyBerner, GeorgeDeCandio

Attendees: IanGreen, SteveAbrams, DominicTulley, ScottBosworth, PaulMcMahan, JimConallen, MattStone? , DavidRuiz, SimonWills, DevangParikh,TorgeKummerow

Matt on performance concerns. Previous experience in fetching large DOORS modules. Concern over fine-grained access to requirements from collections. Large numbers of GETs. Also, problem of large (by volume) "primary text". OSLC RM could adopt "paging" to allow large aggregations to be managed. Do we need inline representations of requirements in collections? Is paging across a collection required in the specification? Don't think that large numbers of links likely. Possible to defer until post 1.0? Action on Matt to investigate pagination in context of RM 1.0.

Do we want query in the spec? Do we want pagination on collection resource? Matt and Ian to look at this.

On context: service discovery does talk about context. service discovery documents intended to hide notion of project. Steve: want granularity of contexts to be consistent across domains.