Thanks Paul, Some responses inlined...
Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM wrote on 02/08/2013 01:29:47 PM: > From: Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM > To: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: [email protected] > Date: 02/08/2013 02:00 PM > Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change request"-like resources > > QualityManagementTask is a change request for creating or updating a test > artifact, often in response to a change in some other artifact such as a > requirement or plan item. QualityManagementTasks are also used to track > the setup and preparation of test environments. This often involves > procurement and installation of hardware/software, creating data pools, > creating virtualized services, provisioning test images in the cloud, etc. > Think of QualityManagementTask as a ChangeRequest of special interest to > quality management processes. Much like the RequirementsChangeRequest > mentioned in your proposal could be seen as a ChangeRequest of special > interest to requirements management processes. > Perhaps we can look at a couple of other questions here: 1. What scenarios need to look at the type of resource to know it is specifically a QMTask to do things differently? 2. What additional properties would a QMTask have from a generic Task? > ReviewTask is a request to review or approve an artifact, typically > resulting in its status being changed to 'reviewed', 'approved', 'rejected', > etc. The review process/workflow can often span across multiple OSLC > domains. For example the review process for a test artifact can also > involve the review process for the requirements or plan items linked to it. > Think of ReviewTask as a ChangeRequest that helps track the people and > processes involved in preparing a lifecycle artifact for use. > We do have a number of scenarios that call our for a "Review" type of resource. Perhaps we (speaking with my CM hat on) can define what we need and socialize it to more (Core, RM, QM, etc) who may have a need for this review. Also, approvals are a close cousin of review....do you see this as well? > Maybe including the "Task" suffix in the names of these proposed new > subtypes is misleading, since I agree it leaves you with an impression that > they are just specializations of Task. But I think that these subtypes are > at least as distinct as the other proposed subtypes (Defect, PlanItem, > RequirementChangeRequest). So maybe different names would help - > QualityManagementChangeRequest and ReviewRequest ? > > Best wishes, > Paul McMahan > IBM Rational > > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM > To: Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: [email protected] > Date: 02/07/2013 01:30 PM > Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change request"-like resources > > Paul, > > Could you provide a bit more detail (scenario) of why these specific types > of resources are needed and a simple "Task" is not enough? > > Thanks, > Steve Speicher > IBM Rational Software > OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> http://open-services.net > > Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM wrote on 11/29/2012 02:14:57 PM: > > > From: Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM > > To: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, > > Cc: [email protected], "Oslc-Cm" <[email protected]> > > Date: 11/29/2012 02:15 PM > > Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change request"-likeresources > > > > +1, I would also like to suggest QualityManagementTask and ReviewTask as well. > > > > Best wishes, > > Paul McMahan > > IBM Rational > > > > "Oslc-Cm" <[email protected]> wrote on 11/29/2012 01:48:16 PM: > > > > > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: 11/29/2012 01:48 PM > > > Subject: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change request"- > > > like resources > > > Sent by: "Oslc-Cm" <[email protected]> > > > > > > Currently, the CM 2.0 defines only 1 rdf:type of resource and we all know > > > and love that as oslc_cm:ChangeRequest. > > > > > > There are many other "kinds" of change requests, today we help guide some > > > scenarios that are looking for these kinds of resources by using > > > oslc:usage with some known values [1],[2]. > > > > > > Not having these usage identifiers be rdf:types has always been a little > > > odd, for a number of reasons: > > > - Typical way of querying and inferring the type of resource relied on > > > non-standard ways > > > - Associating dialogs, factories, queries without these type is a bit off. > > > > > > We've already proven the need for these usage/type things. So the names > > > (ids) and concepts are still valid. > > > > > > My proposal: > > > In 3.0, introduce these as additional subtypes (rdfs:subClassOf > > > oslc_cm:ChangeRequest) as first class OSLC-CM resource types: Defect, > > > PlanItem, Task, RequirementsChangeRequest. > > > > > > [1] - > > > http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-cm_open-services.net/2010- > > > June/000172.html > > > [2] - > > > http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2#Usage_Identifiers > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Steve Speicher > > > IBM Rational Software > > > OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> > > > http://open-services.net > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Oslc-Cm mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-cm_open-services.net > > >
