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
.
TWiki
>
Main Web
>
RmHome
>
RmMeetings
>
RmMeetings20100602
(10 Sep 2010,
IanGreen
)
(raw view)
Meeting 2nd June 2010<br /><br />Agenda * Review action items * RmSpecificationNeedsV2 * Scope of V2 * OSLC RM V2.0 DRAFT Specificaton Feedback (RmSpecificationV2 * OSLC Standardized Link Types DRAFT Feedback (OSLCCoreLinksDRAFT) * OLSC UI Preview investigation * AOB Apologies: Attendees: IanGreen, DominicTulley, ScottBosworth, JeremyDick, SimonWills, JimConallen, NicholasKruk, BrendaEllis, Minutes:We took a tour of the specification needs and there was some discussion. Standardization of link types in particular. It was agreed that scenarios can shed light on the intended meaning of a relationship, and that OSLCCoreLinksDRAFT should not rely solely on "name" as a means of definition. Agreed that user-extensible relationships desirable, but agreeing and developing a catalogue was a good step forward. Brenda took action to write up her feedback on the this link standardisation. Scott pointed out that domain specs were expected to include in their specifications which of the standardized link types were part of a domain specification; this was agreed. Ian took action to bring the draft up-to-date in this respect (some are currently missing). Idea is that OSLC Core team will review "domain-specific" relationships with an eye to moving them into Core specification. This would take place during the convergence phase of a specification. Reiterated that RM spec will not preclude non-OSLC-defined relationships from being present in a resource representation. General mood was that emphasis on the workgroup to adopt the OSLC Core was a good and necessary step in the development of OSLC RM, and that reduced scenario efforts would necessarily result. Scott emphasised that RM 2.0 should not loose sight of the scenarios it is supporting; Simon/Jeremy took an action to review the OSLC Core and see which of the scenarios that we've considered will either be covered, or partially covered, by RM 2.0. (For example, link standardisation and query do support scenarios we've discussed.) On adopting Core - agreed that we should not gold-plate the specification. For example, if there is no call for JSON representations, the V2 specification will leave this as a MAY. All agreed that adoption of OSLC Core should be prime focus of RM 2.0 spec.
E
dit
|
A
ttach
|
P
rint version
|
H
istory
: r3
<
r2
<
r1
|
B
acklinks
|
V
iew topic
|
Ra
w
edit
|
M
ore topic actions
Topic revision: r3 - 10 Sep 2010 - 11:18:29 -
IanGreen
Main
Main Web
Create New Topic
Index
Search
Changes
Notifications
RSS Feed
Statistics
Preferences
Webs
Main
Sandbox
TWiki
Български
Cesky
Dansk
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
日本語
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Svenska
简体中文
簡體中文
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