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
>
RmMeetings20100823
(26 Aug 2010,
IanGreen
)
(raw view)
---++++ Agenda Updates on Action Items * Specification work * Example OSLC Defined resources (discovery, requirement, collection) * Recent changes- Issue tracking * Implementation progress - unconfirmed * Rational (DOORS, DOORS RP) * Tieto is implementing OSLC RM. * Legal * Please complete paperwork at RmSpecificationCovenantV2 in accordance with the [[http://open-services.net/html/Terms.html][OSLC Ts&Cs]]. ---++++ Minutes Apologies:DominicTulley PaulMcMahan, AndyBerner, DaveJohnson, Attendees: IanGreen, , NicolasKruk, ScottBosworth, JimConallen, [[IngridJorgensen][IngridJørgensen]], SimonWills, BrendaEllis, Minutes: Ingrid: lack of consistency across OSLC providers. Scott: Over time we may need to strengthen this, uniformly across the domain. Scott: Clarification: Core makes strong statement about RDF/XML and its adoption. Encouraging domain specs to support RDF/XML. Simon: adding types to names is wrong thing to do. Scott: "no right way" there are tradeoffs - guidance is needed. This is one of the topics for Wed OSLC Core meeting. Ingrid: Caliber does not have query capability. Her application does not need query at all - delegated picker is enough. Scott: concern that we are becoming lowest common denominator where all things are MAY, not MUST. Jim no query at all severely limits useability. Query is complex - perhaps some subset could be implemented. What should our philosophy be? We are on a slippery slope of requiring "nothing". Jim how about: MUST have one of query or delegated picker. Brenda: shouldn't make decisions based on ease of implemenation for any one tool. Query is "highly desired" but is not a "SHALL". Hard to assess the ramifications. Providers should be able to document what is non-compliant. Implementation report from the CM team. Query is dissected. General discussion about query/MUST. Consensus on MUST for query. Action on Ian to update the specification. Concern from Ingrid - eg marketing impact. Simon: query is useful - can we make it incremental. SHOULD then later, a MUST. We could advertise the fact it will become a MUST. Scott - we would regret not having query. Agreed that query is a MUST. Agreed that an RM implementation report would be a useful addition to the wiki. Ingrid - not on calls. Need to resend invites. Action on Ian. Agreed that Monday PM is good time for all.
E
dit
|
A
ttach
|
P
rint version
|
H
istory
: r5
<
r4
<
r3
<
r2
<
r1
|
B
acklinks
|
V
iew topic
|
Ra
w
edit
|
M
ore topic actions
Topic revision: r5 - 26 Aug 2010 - 15:17:41 -
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