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.
Agenda
- Finalization progress
- Feedback on 2.0 (how we did)
- Collection of implementation reports
- Looking ahead - Discussion around future scenarios (eg Versions, Baselining (eg RmScenariosSiemens))
Minutes
Apologies:DominicTulley, PaulMcMahan, AndyBerner, DaveJohnson, IanGreen, , NicolasKruk, ScottBosworth, JimConallen, IngridJørgensen, SimonWills, BrendaEllis, Attendees: ScottBosworth, NicolasKruk, Minutes: Await completion of implementation reports to validate the specification. Action on Ian to solicit implementation reports (AM, QM, CM) for both 2.0 and 1.0. Scott - feedback from consumers that rdf/xml is insufficient and that rdf/xml is a "high" bar for consumers. web clients can't easily deal with rdf/xml, so proposal is to extend the specification with a new XML representation that OSCLRM can REQUIRE in its specification. Role of notification across OSLC. JSON represenations Ease of adoption - test suites etc.Topic revision: r2 - 27 Sep 2010 - 15:49:16 - IanGreen
Main Web
Create New Topic
Index
Search
Changes
Notifications
RSS Feed
Statistics
Preferences
Main|
|
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