[email protected] wrote on 08/09/2012 08:40:27 AM:
> Charles Rankin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > Sent by: [email protected] > > 08/09/2012 08:40 AM > > To > > [email protected], > > cc > > Subject > > Re: [Oslc-Automation] Automation specification updates + request for > outputParameter name suggestions > > [email protected] wrote on 08/08/2012 10:20:52 AM: > > > From: Michael F Fiedler/Durham/IBM@IBMUS > > > > I've updated the specification with the promised changes related to > > identification of automation sub-domains in the service provider document: > > > > http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/ > > AutoSpecificationV2#Automation_Provider_Sub_Domains > > I thought there was agreement that this would only be specified via > oslc:usage on the service providers Service resource. The spec still > indicates it may appear on factories and query capabilities. > I went back and reviewed the minutes from the meeting where oslc:usage was discussed [1] and you are correct. I have adjusted the specification wording. > > and an updated description on the behavior of oslc_auto:outputParameter: > > > > http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/ > > AutoSpecificationV2#Resource_AutomationResult > > This looks good. My only comment would be the last sentence around > inputParameter still seems to imply that the outputParameter will > only be there if the input value changed. I removed the sentence. It was obsolete in light of the updated description of outputParameter. > > > There has been discussion on the mailing list and in the workgroup > > around renaming oslc_auto:outputParameter. I am soliciting > > suggestions for discussion in this week's workgroup meeting. So > > far, I believe we only have two candidates: > > > > oslc_auto:outputParameter > > oslc_auto:executionVariable > > > > Other suggestions? One benefit to outputParameter is the symmetry > > with the inputParameter attribute, but we could consider a change > > there as well. > > My only other suggestion would be currentParameter, which makes a > lot of sense while the automation is executing, but loses a bit of > clarity after the automation has completed. With the choice of > outputParameter or executionVariable, I'd go with outputParameter > for the symmetry. > > Charles Rankin_______________________________________________ > Oslc-Automation mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net [1] - http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/AutomationMeetings201207119 Regards, Mike
