Sounds great. Yes please do add me to the recurring invite.
Best wishes, Paul McMahan IBM Rational Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM wrote on 02/28/2013 03:26:05 PM: > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM > To: Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: [email protected] > Date: 02/28/2013 03:26 PM > Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change > request"-like resources > > Hi Paul, > > The WG had a healthy discussion around this but thought it would be > good to have a review with you on the con call. I personally may > not be able to meet the next 2 meetings. So...either you all can > carry on without me, we can schedule another time or just stick to email. > > Kept it own list in case others want to join the discussion. Also > you want to be a regular on the CM WG? > > Thanks, > Steve Speicher > IBM Rational Software > OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> http://open-services.net > > Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM wrote on 02/22/2013 05:42:52 PM: > > > From: Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM > > To: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > Cc: [email protected] > > Date: 02/22/2013 05:42 PM > > Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change > request"-like resources > > > > Thanks Steve. Some response inlined.. > > > > Best wishes, > > Paul McMahan > > IBM Rational > > > > Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM wrote on 02/21/2013 01:51:58 PM: > > > > > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM > > > To: Paul McMahan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Date: 02/21/2013 01:51 PM > > > Subject: Re: [oslc-cm] Providing additional types of "change > > > request"-like resources > > > > > > 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 artifactsuch 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? > > > > A few examples : > > > > - A dashboard view or similar type of view showing QMTasks that are used to > > track workflow and dependencies between test team members who collaborate on > > the construction of test artifacts and test environments. > > > > - An OSLC deployment automation provider that is polling for QMTasks so > > that it can automate the preparation of (often virtualized) test > environments. > > > > - When a requirement or plan item that is linked to a test case changes > > that test case may need to be updated to ensure proper coverage. The test > > case is marked as "suspect" and a QMTask is linked to the test case to bind > > together the appropriate resources and track resolution of the suspicion. > > This QMTask is unique in a way among other types of change requests because > > it often means that a test artifact needs to be checked (and might? need to > > be changed) vs. something like a defect where action is definitely needed > > (assuming it is valid). > > > > In my experience working on Jazz based products, one interesting thing about > > QMTasks is that they are typically maintained separately from other types of > > change requests. The set of users they are assigned to is often disjoint > > from other types of change requests (testers vs. developers), they have > > different process/workflow, and the are usually provided by a separate > > ServiceProvider (a provider of "Quality Tasks" in Jazz > administration terminology). > > > > > 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? > > > > Yes! I can think of real world scenarios where a review or approval needs > > to span across resources in multiple domains. > > > > > > 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" <oslc-cm-bounces@open- > > > services.net> > > > > > 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. > Sothe 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 > > > > > >
