On second thoughts... I propose: we move the ":futureActions" and ":executes" predicates to the Core namespace/vocab, but leave the specs otherwise as-is. (Subject to this being acceptable to Anamitra - that he still has time to change his implementation). This should involve minimal re-reviews, as the spec content has hardly changed, and allows a cleaner Actions 3.0 spec at OASIS.
(My only hesitation is the fact that a predicate called ":executes" sounds like a general purpose one that would suit being in Automation and re-used form elsewhere, but as we don't use it for anything else in Automation, and there's zero problem in using a Core term from Automation, I'll stick with my proposal as worded above.) Martin "Oslc-Automation" <[email protected]> wrote on 16/09/2014 10:32:31: > From: Martin P Pain/UK/IBM@IBMGB > To: John Arwe <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Date: 16/09/2014 10:33 > Subject: Re: [Oslc-Automation] Bi-direction Actions/Auto spec > dependencies, & action metadata at resource type (shape) level > Sent by: "Oslc-Automation" <[email protected]> > > (1) I've talked to Anamitra to make sure he has the meeting details > and to get him on the mailing list. > He won't need to use Automation to have the need to find the > concrete actions, but I'll let him talk about his scenario. > > (2) The only "problem" I can see is not really a problem, just a > slight strangeness that Actions 3 might end up being the main spec > to define the usage of 2 terms in the Automation namespace (when we > have the chance to move it now). I'll see if I can get an opinion > from Core on that. > > Martin > > > > > "Oslc-Automation" <[email protected]> wrote > on 15/09/2014 17:38:54: > > > From: John Arwe <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Date: 15/09/2014 17:40 > > Subject: Re: [Oslc-Automation] Bi-direction Actions/Auto spec > > dependencies, & action metadata at resource type (shape) level > > Sent by: "Oslc-Automation" <[email protected]> > > > > I don't object to any of the potential changes discussed here in > > Martin's email. > > > > (1) I do want to be clear on motivating scenarios though. > > > > It's fair to say Anamitra does [would] need it *if his scenario > > requires the ability to select and configure an action "to be > > executed once it [the action]has been instantiated [actually becomes > > available]"). All I'm saying is that Anamitra should be the one to > > say if he needs that now, or forsees that need as a likely > > consequence even though he's not going to tackle it now. Maximo > > does not use Automation today, so it's not completely obvious to me > > that they'd ever have this need. > > (2) I do want to be clear on the resulting schedule. Remember I'm > > out for 3 weeks, starting later this week. > > Any change carries non-zero risk. I would say to some degree that > > when Anamitra's feedback on future actions arrived, we (certainly, I > > did this) intentionally *avoided* moving future actions down into > > Core, in part to mange the risk of the larger change. Would, for > > example, moving a function entirely between specs require us to > > restart the review process with Core? Not obvious to me. > > If we believe that "Actions 3.0" is going to be needed "soon > > enough", we might choose to do move the 'function' in 3.0 not 2.0. > > Core's guidance has been to lock down in-flight specs and move to > > OASIS. If the spec change doesn't affect implementations (which it > > should not, I believe is the commonly held assumption), what's > > leading us to "jam" it in now versus enter OASIS with a change that > > we'd really like to see on its work queue? Is it needed now, or is > > doing it now polishing the nose cone? > > Best Regards, John > > > > Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages > > Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead > > _______________________________________________ > > Oslc-Automation mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net > > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with > number 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Automation mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
