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
>
RmMeetings20110110
(10 Jan 2011,
IanGreen
)
(raw view)
Meeting 10th January 2011 * 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 Minutes 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.
E
dit
|
A
ttach
|
P
rint version
|
H
istory
: r2
<
r1
|
B
acklinks
|
V
iew topic
|
Ra
w
edit
|
M
ore topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 10 Jan 2011 - 17:06:05 -
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