• Reminder about Covenant
• Resource Examples
• Implementation Reports for RM
  • Provider, Consumer, Test. Other?
  • Purpose, style, content
• Directions for 2011
  • OSLC Core topics - brief review
    • Baselines, Attachments, Discussions/Comments (domain)
    • Change Log (architecture)
    • Test Suite, Reference Implementation (maturation, adoption, clarification)
  • RM
    • Relationship to other protocols (STEP/AP, RIF, SysML? )
    • Feedback on BaselinesInOslc

Attendees: Steve, Dominic, Simon, Ingrid, Scott, Ian, Jim, Dave

Apologies:

Ingrid: no implementation plans for Caliber RM. Awaiting OSLC QM implementation. Providing RM from Caliber.

Simon: still playing catch-up - looks like there is relevant information on the QM providers page. Links to more information would be value.

Scott- market awareness and also technical side.

Simon: How wide has the discussion been around baselines? DOORS baselines have been there for a number of years, but including links has been only relatively recently. Traceability needs to be included. Jim concurs. Also emphasised the need for composite or cross-application baselines.

How to ensure that the spec. is doing what RM requires? Submit use cases to the oSLC core may not be enough - we likely need personal contributions. Scott: not only to influence but also to feedback into RM.

Need to nominate someone - Simon suggested that we leave Ian to email when things are being discussed. Ian to circulate link to that material.

Dominic: attachments not that interesting.

Simon: Agreement that baselining is more fundamental to what we're trying to achieve.

Dave: change log proposal is of value. Discussion on Feb 9th will show the benefits. Ian/Dave to put together some material together for RM workgroup.

Scott: Expectation is that domain workgroups will drive RM-specific tests reference implementations etc. We don't want to force this on the workgroups, but it would. Simon: most interested as a consumer - test suites are well-worn path for compliance. RI can be useful to generate understanding of something that is new. 5% of design process, thereafter used only occassionally. Scott concurred.

Simon: requirements organization - a bag of requirements is not always helpful. How do we offer requirements in a structured way.