Minutes for 2012-09-18
Attending: David, Mike, Steve S, Niklas
- Reminded everyone to sign the new agreement forms.
- We discussed the Incremental Development Using Baselines scenario. We discussed that some systems might not have baseline as a separate resource, rather it could be a collection of artifacts tagged with some unique baseline identifier. Mike stated that baselines were treated as configurations on a stub branch. We briefly talked about what other types of artifacts are linked. Mike stated that requirements were often held within PLM tools and could be viewed and compared as they can with product hierarchies.
- We discussed Compare Baselines scenario. We discussed that one of the more important aspects of this can be determining the set of changes included in a baseline compared with some previous baseline. Also different processes might be used for this, sometimes aggregating change details from low-level artifacts to a higher level artifacts in order to make querying and reporting easier and more efficient making the predecessor property important. Mike mentioned that they also report on change requests, but they don’t call this a baseline compare.
Particular releases might have a BOM (Bill of Materials), and they can perform a comparison of BOMs. This scenario needs further development since the types of reporting and traceability is not yet described.
- We discussed how incremental development tracked changes that applied to multiple versions of a product or system. Mike stated that change requests tended to apply to a particular product version and documented the effectivity of the change - such as a date or serial number in which the change should be delivered.
- We briefly discussed predecessor/successor relations. Steve stated that the W3C WG on provenance had made some good progress. It would be useful to add a link to that W3C WG from the CM Wiki. This relates to the PLM WG proposals for core using a vocabulary of dcterms:isVersionOf and dcterms:replaces.
- We agreed that it would be useful to review scenarios from the PLM WG to see which aspects might be useful in developing CM WG scenarios.
- We discussed whether issues, comments, and questions should be edited on the scenarios page(s), or on separate pages. Steve mentioned that both practices are commonly used, but early discussion tends to be on the same page as the topic. We agreed to keep the scenarios as a single page for the moment, but it will probably benefit from splitting into several pages as the content expands.
