I had a call with one of my implementation owners today, that I'm trying to convince to pick up Automation.... on the surface it's a very close fit to their needs. There are a couple of points of hangup however: (1) MUST on OSLC Query Syntax. They simply do not see a need for this in their usage scenarios. Core has this as a MAY; I propose we weaken Automation to either SHOULD or "strongly RECOMMENDED". We are looking at several implementations this year likely to leverage Automation where I see a similar pattern.
(2) MUST support PUT on Automation Result. Ditto - not needed. I propose we weaken Automation to either SHOULD or "strongly RECOMMENDED". (3) Direct quote below: > I see this statement at the beginning: > "Automation resources define automation plans, automation requests and automation results of the software development, test and deployment lifecycle." > seems that scope is different from our intended use. that's a concern. I think this is clearly just someone reading the informative introduction as limiting. I'm guessing that like most spec owners, we'd all be thrilled if Automation was suddenly widely adopted all over the Web, including for unanticipated usages. This is coming from someone who "lives" in operations-space; while I can fix this via 1:1 explanations, it is a cautionary example of how real people can read things not-as-intended. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
