> suggest that we push this topic back to the CM workgroup to decide actions > they want/need to take and that the core workgroup stay appraised of progress > they make in experimenting or spec'ing of CM specific approaches. Steve, does > this make sense to you?
Yes I was implying this in my other response on this topic. Thanks, Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 > From: Scott Bosworth/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > To: [email protected] > Date: 02/08/2011 09:14 AM > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Attachments > Sent by: [email protected] > > Sounds to me like there is an emerging consensus that we not take this up as a > core workgroup or a core spec topic, for the various reasons already stated. I > think that's fine, but we should recognize that we have a narrower and > specific set of use cases/needs expressed by several CM workgroup members. I > suggest that we push this topic back to the CM workgroup to decide actions > they want/need to take and that the core workgroup stay appraised of progress > they make in experimenting or spec'ing of CM specific approaches. Steve, does > this make sense to you? > > > > From: Martin Nally/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > To: Nick Crossley/Irvine/IBM@IBMUS > > Cc: [email protected] > > Date: 02/07/2011 06:07 PM > > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Attachments > > Sent by: [email protected] > > > > To me this sounds like there is not a sufficiently compelling reason to > > specify anything new, beyond perhaps explaining how Dave's non-design can > > be applied to attachments. How would we poll the stakeholders to test that > > assertion? > > > > Best regards, Martin > > > > Martin Nally, IBM Fellow > > CTO and VP, IBM Rational > > tel: +1 (714)472-2690 > > > > > > > Scott Bosworth | IBM Rational CTO Team | [email protected] | 919.486.2197(w) > | 919.244.3387(m) | 919.254.5271(f)_______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
