|
Re: OSLC-OP Meeting Minutes 2023-03-30
Jad El-Khoury
Hi all We also decided today to cancel next Thursday’s (6th April) meetings due to easter & Pesach that week.
Regards Jad
From: oslc-op-pgb@... <oslc-op-pgb@...>
On Behalf Of Jim Amsden
Sent: Thursday, 30 March 2023 17:10 To: oslc-op@...; oslc-op-pgb@... Subject: [oslc-op-pgb] OSLC-OP Meeting Minutes 2023-03-30
OSLC OP Meeting minutes (Mar 30, 2023)Chairs: Jim Amsden, Jad El-khoury Attendees:
Previous minutes: https://github.com/oslc-op/oslc-admin/blob/master/minutes/2022/2023-03-23.md Agenda
MinutesCM ErrataZip file sent to OASIS, no feedback yet. Jim to ping Paul to make sure he has everything he needs. TRS SoUsIBM has submitted. KTH and Sodius-Willert are listed as potential submitters, but haven't yet (at least I couldn't find the SoUs in the oslc-op mailing archive). GET vs POSTOSLC makes much us of GET with query parameters in some cases, that could expose information that has security implications. The POST entity request bodies could be encrypted to avoid exposing query strings in the URI. See CWE-598: Use of GET Request Method With Sensitive Query Strings. This is a broader HTTP issue that could be resolved by using TLS. But there may be cases where certain URLs have to be sent unencrpted to get through various proxies, etc. Or decrypted GET URLs could be stored in a user's browser where they could be exposed to hackers. TLS only addresses secure transition of HTTP requests, it does not address security of the content of those resources once they are consummed by a client or server. We could do an inventory of all OSLC GETs, see which ones use query parameters, and which of these parameters might expose security issues and would therefore require updating the specs to support POST. OSLC Query already supports GET and POST for query strings. The only other GET in OSLC that might expose information is GET with selective properties. This would only expose property names, not values. CWE-598 explicity uses an example of exposing database column names which would be similar to exposing RDF resource property URLs. Jim will create an issue against OSLC core to support GET or POST with selective properties. Action items
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: Contribution to OSLC from Adeptness H2020 EU project
Jad El-Khoury
Hi Mikal
I am personally not involved in the Automation domain but let's see what the rest in the community think.
One reflection I can share is that – for an outsider – it can be hard to relate to the to the entities you are describing. It can also be hard to motivate their needs/usage. You may want to consider first setting up some practical integration scenarios. It can give some more context. Such scenarios should also help making some of the decisions over the many alternatives you are discussing below.
regards Jad
From: Mikel Garay <mgaray@...>
Sent: Thursday, 23 March 2023 15:51 To: Jad El-Khoury <jad@...> Cc: Asier Larrucea <alarrucea@...>; oslc-op@... Subject: RE: Contribution to OSLC from Adeptness H2020 EU project
Hi Jad,
First of all, thank you for your quick response. We have indeed considered defining a new domain and calling it “Validation domain” first, but just like you said, we wanted to use the existing vocabulary as much as possible to try to ensure integration into existing tools, and to make the process easier for developers. That is why we ended up on the fence between the Automation and QM domains, since these entities we are trying to model are used in automated testing, we felt both domains could be used, but fell short when modelling some of them, like I previously described. That is why we prepared an extension on the Automation domain and have worked on two possible new entities for it, and modified others in order to accommodate the new ones. But before deciding on them as our final choice, we wanted to make sure we were not missing another possibility by getting in touch through this mailing list and explaining our situation. In case it might be interesting for the actual Automation domain, let me briefly mention the entities we are working on and the reasoning behind them. The entity names are temporary for now, so if you have a proposal for a better name, it will be very welcome.
The first entity we are considering is an “AutomationPlanCollection”, an entity that would allow the grouping of AutomationPlans, in the same way a RequirementCollection allows the grouping of Requirements in RM, or how a Service Provider Catalog contains multiple Service Providers and other Catalogs in the Core domain. We think allowing the grouping of AutomationPlans into another entity can be an interesting option for users, and feel this would be the best way to do it. We are currently deciding if one of these collections should be able to reference another collection, like SPCs do in Core.
The second entity we are working on is the one that could represent an Adeptness Oracle, and are currently naming it an “AutomationOracle” for now, but we are considering changing it into “AutomationStage” or “AutomationAgent”. What we are focusing on here is in offering more information by segmenting the AutomationPlan into smaller chunks or by offering a complimentary entity. We are doing this because in its current state in version 2.0 of the specification, an AutomationPlan is monolithic and does not bring much context information about itself. If we take a CI/CD pipeline as an entity that could be modelled as an AutomationPlan, we think that it could be interesting to have an entity representing either the stages/script/steps of the AutomationPlan, or bring more information about its test environment by specifying an agent that executes said steps, like a Jenkins agent would, for example. We think one of this two options (or both) could fit with our definition of an Oracle, and could enrich the information an AutomationPlan has by giving information about the mentioned contexts.
I am aware that the Automation domain is not actively being worked on at the moment, but I think these entities we are working on could bring an interesting discussion if the Automation domain were to be extended in the future. Of course, we are open to suggestions if you think our approach can be improved or if it does not align with OSLC principles in some way.
Kind regards,
De: Jad El-Khoury <jad@...>
Hi Mikel,
Have you considered extending the QM or Automation domains to better match your needs? Alternatively, why not define your own domain that reflects the type of entities you need to exchange.
IMHO, it is relevant to stick to the QM/Automation domains if you are trying to integrate with tools that assumes these types of entities (Such as Rational Quality Manager https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/elm/6.0.1?topic=overview-rational-quality-manager). Is that the case for you? One should of course try to reuse as much of the Vocabularies and Shapes already defined. But that should not hinder you from extending those either.
Also, you might want to consider using the Eclipse Lyo Designer application to model your entities (or extend the existing ones). https://oslc.github.io/developing-oslc-applications/eclipse_lyo/lyo-designer.html The documentation is relatively old but it is still usable.
Regards Jad
From:
oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
On Behalf Of Mikel Garay
Hello everyone,
I am currently working in the Adeptness project (https://adeptness.eu/), an EU funded project for the development of a framework that allows automating the design-operation continuum of Cyber-Physical Systems of Systems (CPSoS). Since CPSoS have a very long lifecycle even after their deployment, having an efficient deployment and testing framework is vital to avoid runtime errors. As an example, one of the project’s use cases is based on Orona, a Spain-based company specialized in the design, manufacturing and maintenance of elevators. Orona wants to improve the software deployment and testing of new versions, and must have a resilient recovery system for unforeseen situations, to minimize incidents with the elevators. To achieve this, Adeptness has developed the following: an automated deployment system, a Test Case and Oracle generation and reuse system, an unforeseen situation detection mechanism, and recovery mechanisms for said unforeseen scenarios.
After the development of these systems, one of the objectives of Adeptness is to enable the integration of these services into existing tools, and this is where OSLC comes into play. We are trying to model some of the data entities into OSLC, and we have some questions about how to carry on with it. The data model is quite big, and for a first version, we are considering an integration with some of the most relevant entities. The section of the data model we are trying to work with is in the attached image. A brief summary of the entities shown in bold boxes would be the following:
To model these entities into OSLC, we have been considering two approaches: using the QM domain or the Automation domain. Since we are conducting tests, we did start trying to model with the QM domain, mapping the Adeptness Test Case to a QM Test Case and the Adeptness Validation Agent to a QM Test Plan. However, we were not sure if an Oracle could fit in the definition of a QM Test Script, and the entities Validation Plan and Test Input felt like they did not fit in the domain. Because of this, we tried to map the entities to the Automation domain, using the Adeptness Test Case as an Automation Plan, since it can fit the definition of “A unit of automation that is available for execution”. In the Automation domain, the Adeptness TestInput model could fit as an InputParameters entity as well, however, the rest of elements did not fit too well… What approach would you take regarding this? Do you think we are missing something, or maybe the data model does not fit with what OSLC currently offers?
Thank you for your help,
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
OSLC-OP Meeting Minutes 2023-03-30
OSLC OP Meeting minutes (Mar 30, 2023)Chairs: Jim Amsden, Jad El-khoury Attendees:
Previous minutes: https://github.com/oslc-op/oslc-admin/blob/master/minutes/2022/2023-03-23.md Agenda
MinutesCM ErrataZip file sent to OASIS, no feedback yet. Jim to ping Paul to make sure he has everything he needs. TRS SoUsIBM has submitted. KTH and Sodius-Willert are listed as potential submitters, but haven't yet (at least I couldn't find the SoUs in the oslc-op mailing archive). GET vs POSTOSLC makes much us of GET with query parameters in some cases, that could expose information that has security implications. The POST entity request bodies could be encrypted to avoid exposing query strings in the URI. See CWE-598: Use of GET Request Method With Sensitive Query Strings. This is a broader HTTP issue that could be resolved by using TLS. But there may be cases where certain URLs have to be sent unencrpted to get through various proxies, etc. Or decrypted GET URLs could be stored in a user's browser where they could be exposed to hackers. TLS only addresses secure transition of HTTP requests, it does not address security of the content of those resources once they are consummed by a client or server. We could do an inventory of all OSLC GETs, see which ones use query parameters, and which of these parameters might expose security issues and would therefore require updating the specs to support POST. OSLC Query already supports GET and POST for query strings. The only other GET in OSLC that might expose information is GET with selective properties. This would only expose property names, not values. CWE-598 explicity uses an example of exposing database column names which would be similar to exposing RDF resource property URLs. Jim will create an issue against OSLC core to support GET or POST with selective properties. Action items
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Now: oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting - Thursday, March 30, 2023
#cal-notice
Group Notification <noreply@...>
oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting When: Where: Organizer: Jim Amsden jamsden@... Description: One tap audio Dial In: +15124022718,,,,2979764690# (US) or +498938038719,,,,2979764690# (Germany) Looking for a different dial in number? Please see: https://meet.jit.si/static/dialInInfo.html?room=oslc-op Meeting ID: 2979764690#
The meeting minutes are edited in https://hackmd.io/@driib/oslc-op-minutes/edit
Previous minutes can be found under https://github.com/oslc-op/oslc-admin/tree/master/minutes/2019 OASIS OSLC Open Project group home: https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op oslc-op GitHub Organization: https://github.com/oslc-op Mailing list: oslc-op@... (archives: https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op) |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
IBM Statement of Use for The OSLC Open Project OSLC Tracked Resource Set Version 3.0
Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@...>
IBM has successfully implemented the OASIS OSLC Tracked Resource Set Version 3.0, dated 24 November 2022, in accordance with the conformance clauses defined in Section 14 "Conformance" of the specification. This use of the specification includes interoperation with other similar independent implementations, as well as integration with tools supporting other OSLC domain specifications.
-
Assistant - Mauricio Durán Cambronero (mauduran@...) Co-Chair - Open Cybersecurity Alliance, Project Governing Board www.opencybersecurityalliance.org
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Soliciting Statements of Use for OSLC Tracked Resource Set Version 3.0
The OSLC Open Project OSLC Tracked Resource Set Version 3.0, Project Specification, revision 02 is now soliciting Statements of Use in order to proceed on the OASIS standards track. This revision incorporates the insight gained from many implementations, integrations with other lifecycle management tools, and user experience, while maintaining compatibility with OSLC specifications. Implementations of this specification are therefore applicable for Statements of Use required to progress to OASIS Standard.
The OSLC Open Project is ready to accept Statements of Use from implementers. This is an essential part of the OASIS standardization process and will enable us to progress to OASIS Standard. Please see Section 14 of the OASIS Open Project Rules for more information. In summary:
“Statement of Use“, with respect to a Committee Specification or Project Specification, is a written statement that a party has successfully used or implemented that specification in accordance with all or some of its conformance clauses, identifying those clauses that apply, and stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent implementations. The Statement of Use must be made to a specific version of the Specification and must include the Specification’s approval date. The party may be an OASIS Member or a non-member. In case of a non-member, the Statement of Use must be submitted via the Technical Committee’s or Project Governing Board’s comment facility. A TC or PGB may require a Statement of Use to include hyperlinks to documents, files or demonstration transcripts that enable the committee’s members to evaluate the implementation or usage. A Statement of Use submitted to the TC or PGB must be approved by TC Resolution or PGB action as an acceptable Statement of Use with respect to the Specification. A party can only issue one Statement of Use for a given specification. When issued by an OASIS Organizational Member, a Statement of Use must be endorsed by the Organizational Member’s Primary Representative
Statements of Use must be endorsed by the OASIS Organizational Member's Primary Representative. Submitters just need to notify the OOSLC-OP PGB, by submitting their 'Statement of Use' to the oslc-op@... oslc-op@... mailing list.
A typical statement of use could be:
<insert primary representative name / org here> has successfully implemented the OASIS OSLC Tracked Resource Set Version 3.0, dated 24 November 2022, in accordance with the conformance clauses defined in Section 14 "Conformance" of the specification. This use of the specification includes interoperation with other similar independent implementations, as well as integration with tools supporting other OSLC domain specifications.
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
OSLC-OP 2023-03-23 Meeting Minutes
OSLC OP Meeting minutes (Mar 23, 2023) Chairs: Jim Amsden, Jad El-khoury Attendees:
Previous minutes: https://github.com/oslc-op/oslc-admin/blob/master/minutes/2022/2023-03-16.md Agenda
Minutes Reviewed results of PGB meeting:
Change Management 3.0 Errata We resolved the spec changes and with one minor change, this is ready to merge and submit to OASIS. Jim will submit today. TRS v3.0 PS02 COS Vote OSLC-OP Vote: Does the OSLC-OP approve to request OASIS to schedule a Full Majority Vote to submit OSLC Tracked Resource Set Version 3.0 PS02 as a candidate OASIS Specification? No objections, unanimously approved. Jim will request the FMV today. Action items
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: Contribution to OSLC from Adeptness H2020 EU project
Mikel Garay <mgaray@...>
Hi Jad,
First of all, thank you for your quick response. We have indeed considered defining a new domain and calling it “Validation domain” first, but just like you said, we wanted to use the existing vocabulary as much as possible to try
to ensure integration into existing tools, and to make the process easier for developers. That is why we ended up on the fence between the Automation and QM domains, since these entities we are trying to model are used in automated testing, we felt both domains
could be used, but fell short when modelling some of them, like I previously described. That is why we prepared an extension on the Automation domain and have worked on two possible new entities for it, and modified others in order to accommodate the new ones.
But before deciding on them as our final choice, we wanted to make sure we were not missing another possibility by getting in touch through this mailing list and explaining our situation. In case it might be interesting for the actual Automation domain, let
me briefly mention the entities we are working on and the reasoning behind them. The entity names are temporary for now, so if you have a proposal for a better name, it will be very welcome.
The first entity we are considering is an “AutomationPlanCollection”, an entity that would allow the grouping of AutomationPlans, in the same way a RequirementCollection allows the grouping of Requirements in RM, or how a Service
Provider Catalog contains multiple Service Providers and other Catalogs in the Core domain. We think allowing the grouping of AutomationPlans into another entity can be an interesting option for users, and feel this would be the best way to do it. We are currently
deciding if one of these collections should be able to reference another collection, like SPCs do in Core.
The second entity we are working on is the one that could represent an Adeptness Oracle, and are currently naming it an “AutomationOracle” for now, but we are considering changing it into “AutomationStage” or “AutomationAgent”. What
we are focusing on here is in offering more information by segmenting the AutomationPlan into smaller chunks or by offering a complimentary entity. We are doing this because in its current state in version 2.0 of the specification, an AutomationPlan is monolithic
and does not bring much context information about itself. If we take a CI/CD pipeline as an entity that could be modelled as an AutomationPlan, we think that it could be interesting to have an entity representing either the stages/script/steps of the AutomationPlan,
or bring more information about its test environment by specifying an agent that executes said steps, like a Jenkins agent would, for example. We think one of this two options (or both) could fit with our definition of an Oracle, and could enrich the information
an AutomationPlan has by giving information about the mentioned contexts.
I am aware that the Automation domain is not actively being worked on at the moment, but I think these entities we are working on could bring an interesting discussion if the Automation domain were to be extended in the future. Of
course, we are open to suggestions if you think our approach can be improved or if it does not align with OSLC principles in some way.
De: Jad El-Khoury <jad@...>
Enviado: martes, 21 de marzo de 2023 22:36 Para: Mikel Garay <mgaray@...> Cc: Asier Larrucea <alarrucea@...>; oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...> Asunto: RE: Contribution to OSLC from Adeptness H2020 EU project Hi Mikel,
Have you considered extending the QM or Automation domains to better match your needs? Alternatively, why not define your own domain that reflects the type of entities you need to exchange.
IMHO, it is relevant to stick to the QM/Automation domains if you are trying to integrate with tools that assumes these types of entities (Such as Rational Quality Manager https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/elm/6.0.1?topic=overview-rational-quality-manager). Is that the case for you? One should of course try to reuse as much of the Vocabularies and Shapes already defined. But that should not hinder you from extending those either.
Also, you might want to consider using the Eclipse Lyo Designer application to model your entities (or extend the existing ones). https://oslc.github.io/developing-oslc-applications/eclipse_lyo/lyo-designer.html The documentation is relatively old but it is still usable.
Regards Jad
From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
On Behalf Of Mikel Garay
Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2023 16:12 To: oslc-op@... Cc: Asier Larrucea <alarrucea@...> Subject: [oslc-op] Contribution to OSLC from Adeptness H2020 EU project
Hello everyone,
I am currently working in the Adeptness project (https://adeptness.eu/), an EU funded project for the development of a framework that allows automating the design-operation continuum of Cyber-Physical Systems of Systems (CPSoS). Since CPSoS have a very long lifecycle even after their deployment, having an efficient deployment and testing framework is vital to avoid runtime errors. As an example, one of the project’s use cases is based on Orona, a Spain-based company specialized in the design, manufacturing and maintenance of elevators. Orona wants to improve the software deployment and testing of new versions, and must have a resilient recovery system for unforeseen situations, to minimize incidents with the elevators. To achieve this, Adeptness has developed the following: an automated deployment system, a Test Case and Oracle generation and reuse system, an unforeseen situation detection mechanism, and recovery mechanisms for said unforeseen scenarios.
After the development of these systems, one of the objectives of Adeptness is to enable the integration of these services into existing tools, and this is where OSLC comes into play. We are trying to model some of the data entities into OSLC, and we have some questions about how to carry on with it. The data model is quite big, and for a first version, we are considering an integration with some of the most relevant entities. The section of the data model we are trying to work with is in the attached image. A brief summary of the entities shown in bold boxes would be the following:
To model these entities into OSLC, we have been considering two approaches: using the QM domain or the Automation domain. Since we are conducting tests, we did start trying to model with the QM domain, mapping the Adeptness Test Case to a QM Test Case and the Adeptness Validation Agent to a QM Test Plan. However, we were not sure if an Oracle could fit in the definition of a QM Test Script, and the entities Validation Plan and Test Input felt like they did not fit in the domain. Because of this, we tried to map the entities to the Automation domain, using the Adeptness Test Case as an Automation Plan, since it can fit the definition of “A unit of automation that is available for execution”. In the Automation domain, the Adeptness TestInput model could fit as an InputParameters entity as well, however, the rest of elements did not fit too well… What approach would you take regarding this? Do you think we are missing something, or maybe the data model does not fit with what OSLC currently offers?
Thank you for your help,
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Now: oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting - Thursday, March 23, 2023
#cal-notice
Group Notification <noreply@...>
oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting When: Where: Organizer: Jim Amsden jamsden@... Description: One tap audio Dial In: +15124022718,,,,2979764690# (US) or +498938038719,,,,2979764690# (Germany) Looking for a different dial in number? Please see: https://meet.jit.si/static/dialInInfo.html?room=oslc-op Meeting ID: 2979764690#
The meeting minutes are edited in https://hackmd.io/@driib/oslc-op-minutes/edit
Previous minutes can be found under https://github.com/oslc-op/oslc-admin/tree/master/minutes/2019 OASIS OSLC Open Project group home: https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op oslc-op GitHub Organization: https://github.com/oslc-op Mailing list: oslc-op@... (archives: https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op) |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: Now: oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting
"Eran Gery"
Me too ☹
Eran Gery – Global Industry Solutions Lead, IBM ELM
From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
On Behalf Of Michael Rowe
Sent: Thursday, 23 March 2023 15:57 To: oslc-op@...; jad@... Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [oslc-op] Now: oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting
I am unable to attend today due to customer meetings -- Michael Rowe STSM & MBA – Technical Strategist, ELM Architecture IBM Engineering +1(720)342-2713 Office michael. rowe@ us. ibm. com https: //twitter. com/michaelrowe01 https: //mstdn. social/@ michaelrowe01 ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd I am unable to attend today due to customer meetings
-- Michael Rowe https://twitter.com/michaelrowe01
ibm.co/elm
From:
oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...> on behalf of Jad El-Khoury <jad@...> Hi I am still on winter time, so will not be able to join on time (in 10 min) due to a clash. But will try to join in 30-40 min or so. From: oslc-op@ lists. oasis-open-projects. org <oslc-op@ lists. oasis-open-projects. org> On Behalf Of Group ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Hi
I am still on winter time, so will not be able to join on time (in 10 min) due to a clash. But will try to join in 30-40 min or so.
From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
On Behalf Of Group Notification
oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting When: Where: Organizer: Jim Amsden jamsden@... Description:
Meeting ID: 2979764690#
The meeting minutes are edited in
https://hackmd.io/@driib/oslc-op-minutes/edit
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: Now: oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting
I am unable to attend today due to customer meetings
-- Michael Rowe https://twitter.com/michaelrowe01
ibm.co/elm
From:
oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...> on behalf of Jad El-Khoury <jad@...> Hi I am still on winter time, so will not be able to join on time (in 10 min) due to a clash. But will try to join in 30-40 min or so. From: oslc-op@ lists. oasis-open-projects. org <oslc-op@ lists. oasis-open-projects. org> On Behalf Of Group ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Hi
I am still on winter time, so will not be able to join on time (in 10 min) due to a clash. But will try to join in 30-40 min or so.
From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
On Behalf Of Group Notification
Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2023 15:00 To: oslc-op@... Subject: [oslc-op] Now: oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting - Thursday, March 16, 2023 #cal-notice
oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting When: Where: Organizer: Jim Amsden jamsden@... Description:
Meeting ID: 2979764690#
The meeting minutes are edited in
https://hackmd.io/@driib/oslc-op-minutes/edit
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: Now: oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting
Jad El-Khoury
Hi
I am still on winter time, so will not be able to join on time (in 10 min) due to a clash. But will try to join in 30-40 min or so.
From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
On Behalf Of Group Notification
Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2023 15:00 To: oslc-op@... Subject: [oslc-op] Now: oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting - Thursday, March 16, 2023 #cal-notice
oslc-op Weekly Contributors Meeting When: Where: Organizer: Jim Amsden jamsden@... Description:
Meeting ID: 2979764690#
The meeting minutes are edited in
https://hackmd.io/@driib/oslc-op-minutes/edit
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Re: Contribution to OSLC from Adeptness H2020 EU project
Jad El-Khoury
Hi Mikel,
Have you considered extending the QM or Automation domains to better match your needs? Alternatively, why not define your own domain that reflects the type of entities you need to exchange.
IMHO, it is relevant to stick to the QM/Automation domains if you are trying to integrate with tools that assumes these types of entities (Such as Rational Quality Manager https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/elm/6.0.1?topic=overview-rational-quality-manager). Is that the case for you? One should of course try to reuse as much of the Vocabularies and Shapes already defined. But that should not hinder you from extending those either.
Also, you might want to consider using the Eclipse Lyo Designer application to model your entities (or extend the existing ones). https://oslc.github.io/developing-oslc-applications/eclipse_lyo/lyo-designer.html The documentation is relatively old but it is still usable.
Regards Jad
From: oslc-op@... <oslc-op@...>
On Behalf Of Mikel Garay
Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2023 16:12 To: oslc-op@... Cc: Asier Larrucea <alarrucea@...> Subject: [oslc-op] Contribution to OSLC from Adeptness H2020 EU project
Hello everyone,
I am currently working in the Adeptness project (https://adeptness.eu/), an EU funded project for the development of a framework that allows automating the design-operation continuum of Cyber-Physical Systems of Systems (CPSoS). Since CPSoS have a very long lifecycle even after their deployment, having an efficient deployment and testing framework is vital to avoid runtime errors. As an example, one of the project’s use cases is based on Orona, a Spain-based company specialized in the design, manufacturing and maintenance of elevators. Orona wants to improve the software deployment and testing of new versions, and must have a resilient recovery system for unforeseen situations, to minimize incidents with the elevators. To achieve this, Adeptness has developed the following: an automated deployment system, a Test Case and Oracle generation and reuse system, an unforeseen situation detection mechanism, and recovery mechanisms for said unforeseen scenarios.
After the development of these systems, one of the objectives of Adeptness is to enable the integration of these services into existing tools, and this is where OSLC comes into play. We are trying to model some of the data entities into OSLC, and we have some questions about how to carry on with it. The data model is quite big, and for a first version, we are considering an integration with some of the most relevant entities. The section of the data model we are trying to work with is in the attached image. A brief summary of the entities shown in bold boxes would be the following:
To model these entities into OSLC, we have been considering two approaches: using the QM domain or the Automation domain. Since we are conducting tests, we did start trying to model with the QM domain, mapping the Adeptness Test Case to a QM Test Case and the Adeptness Validation Agent to a QM Test Plan. However, we were not sure if an Oracle could fit in the definition of a QM Test Script, and the entities Validation Plan and Test Input felt like they did not fit in the domain. Because of this, we tried to map the entities to the Automation domain, using the Adeptness Test Case as an Automation Plan, since it can fit the definition of “A unit of automation that is available for execution”. In the Automation domain, the Adeptness TestInput model could fit as an InputParameters entity as well, however, the rest of elements did not fit too well… What approach would you take regarding this? Do you think we are missing something, or maybe the data model does not fit with what OSLC currently offers?
Thank you for your help,
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Contribution to OSLC from Adeptness H2020 EU project
Mikel Garay <mgaray@...>
Hello everyone,
I am currently working in the Adeptness project (https://adeptness.eu/), an EU funded project for the development of a framework that allows automating the design-operation continuum of Cyber-Physical Systems of Systems (CPSoS). Since CPSoS have a very long lifecycle even after their deployment, having an efficient deployment and testing framework is vital to avoid runtime errors. As an example, one of the project’s use cases is based on Orona, a Spain-based company specialized in the design, manufacturing and maintenance of elevators. Orona wants to improve the software deployment and testing of new versions, and must have a resilient recovery system for unforeseen situations, to minimize incidents with the elevators. To achieve this, Adeptness has developed the following: an automated deployment system, a Test Case and Oracle generation and reuse system, an unforeseen situation detection mechanism, and recovery mechanisms for said unforeseen scenarios.
After the development of these systems, one of the objectives of Adeptness is to enable the integration of these services into existing tools, and this is where OSLC comes into play. We are trying to model some of the data entities into OSLC, and we have some questions about how to carry on with it. The data model is quite big, and for a first version, we are considering an integration with some of the most relevant entities. The section of the data model we are trying to work with is in the attached image. A brief summary of the entities shown in bold boxes would be the following:
To model these entities into OSLC, we have been considering two approaches: using the QM domain or the Automation domain. Since we are conducting tests, we did start trying to model with the QM domain, mapping the Adeptness Test Case to a QM Test Case and the Adeptness Validation Agent to a QM Test Plan. However, we were not sure if an Oracle could fit in the definition of a QM Test Script, and the entities Validation Plan and Test Input felt like they did not fit in the domain. Because of this, we tried to map the entities to the Automation domain, using the Adeptness Test Case as an Automation Plan, since it can fit the definition of “A unit of automation that is available for execution”. In the Automation domain, the Adeptness TestInput model could fit as an InputParameters entity as well, however, the rest of elements did not fit too well… What approach would you take regarding this? Do you think we are missing something, or maybe the data model does not fit with what OSLC currently offers?
Thank you for your help,
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
IBM Statement of Use for OSLC Configuration Management Version 1.0
Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@...>
IBM has successfully implemented Specification OSLC Configuration Management Version 1.0, revision 01, dated 30 May 2022, in accordance with the conformance clauses defined in Section 4 "Conformance" of the specification and its related multi-part specification. This use of the specification includes interoperation with other similar independent implementations, as well as integration with tools supporting other OSLC domain specifications.
-
Assistant - Mauricio Durán Cambronero (mauduran@...) Co-Chair - Open Cybersecurity Alliance, Project Governing Board www.opencybersecurityalliance.org
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Now: oslc-op PGB Meeting - Tuesday, March 21, 2023
#cal-notice
Group Notification <noreply@...>
oslc-op PGB Meeting When: Where: Organizer: Jim Amsden jamsden@... Description: One tap audio Dial In: +15124022718,,,,2979764690# (US) or +498938038719,,,,2979764690# (Germany) Looking for a different dial in number? Please see: https://meet.jit.si/static/dialInInfo.html?room=oslc-op Meeting ID: 2979764690#
The meeting minutes are edited in https://hackmd.io/VbaOoso3Q7ighkZv3kkbbQ
Previous minutes can be found under https://github.com/oslc-op/oslc-admin/tree/master/minutes OASIS OSLC Open Project group home: https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op
oslc-op GitHub Organization: https://github.com/oslc-op Mailing list: oslc-op@... (archives: https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op) |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Event: oslc-op PGB Meeting - Tuesday, March 21, 2023
#cal-reminder
Group Notification <noreply@...>
Reminder: oslc-op PGB Meeting When: Where: Organizer: Jim Amsden jamsden@... Description: One tap audio Dial In: +15124022718,,,,2979764690# (US) or +498938038719,,,,2979764690# (Germany) Looking for a different dial in number? Please see: https://meet.jit.si/static/dialInInfo.html?room=oslc-op Meeting ID: 2979764690#
The meeting minutes are edited in https://hackmd.io/VbaOoso3Q7ighkZv3kkbbQ
Previous minutes can be found under https://github.com/oslc-op/oslc-admin/tree/master/minutes OASIS OSLC Open Project group home: https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op
oslc-op GitHub Organization: https://github.com/oslc-op Mailing list: oslc-op@... (archives: https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op) |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
OSLC Product Workgroup
Gray Bachelor
From: gray_bachelor@...
Meeting location: https://meet.jit.si/oslc-op
Welcome to the OSLC Product working group
A submission has been prepared to the OSLC Project Governing Board
At our next meeting we will complete our work to refine the mission and take a first deeper look at the linking scenario as it can help us confirm our scope
Meeting 1) Roll call 2) Noting the minutes of the last meeting Monday 6th Mar https://github.com/oslc-op/oasis-open-project/blob/master/minutes/2023/2023-03-20_OSLC_Product_WG.md Any remarks over accuracy or amendments ? 3) Update on PGB feedback and complete the mission https://github.com/oslc-op/Product-Definition/blob/main/Aim%20of%20the%20OSLC%20Product%20workgroup_200323.docx 4) Discussion around additional available input from a PTC customer 5) Discussion on first scenario to confirm our scope 6) Any other business 7) Confirm next meeting 8) Closing comments from attendees
All inputs are especially welcome Comments, questions, ideas, contributions ?
Please contact Gray Bachelor of IBM or Patrick Ollerton of PTC or post to the oslc-op community
Unless otherwise stated above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
OSLC Product Workgroup procedings
Gray Bachelor
Thanks for all who attended today
Minutes are here https://github.com/oslc-op/oasis-open-project/blob/master/minutes/2023/2023-03-20_OSLC_Product_WG.md
Our draft workings of mission and draft scenarios is here
Next meeting Monday 3rd April 3pm CET / 9ET Invite to go out shortly
NOTE: The workgroup welcomes further submissions of input and collaborate with interested OEMs, PLM tool authors and other interested parties Contact the Co-chairs
Unless otherwise stated above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
OSLC-OP 2023-03-16 Meeting Minutes
OSLC OP Meeting minutes (Mar 02, 2023) Chairs: Jim Amsden, Jad El-khoury Attendees:
Previous minutes: https://github.com/oslc-op/oslc-admin/blob/master/minutes/2022/2023-03-09.md Agenda
Minutes Change Management Pull request pending reviews. May need ot add a section describing the erreata. Prep for PGB meeting The Quarterly PGB meeting is Tuesday 21 March. Proposed agenda:
LDM Specification review using POST to {query endpoint} Config-Context header (optional) query request body: list of object URI references list of predicats Response: triples including: (incoming subject, predicate, reference object) The format of the POST entity request body can be specified ha having Content-Type application/x-www-form-urlencoded, multipart/form-datam, application/json, application/xml, etc. The LDM specification will need to state what Content-Types are supported and provide their request body formats. Discovery of LDM servers URIs follows the same guidelines as in OSLC Core (e.g., rootservices, OPTIONS, etc.). LDM spec does not need to address this further We agree that federating multiple LDM servers is out of scope, clients could use multiple LDM servers is they want, but how they do that is up to them. It could be to cluster multiple LDM servers that have the same data, or multiple LDM servers that have the same or possibly overlapping data. An LDM server has a server URI, some descriptor URI that provides some metadata about the server. In that descriptor is the URI of the {query endpoint} referenced above. The LDM spec needs to define: 1. GET on LDM serverURI results 2. URI to access and content for LDM metadata 3. queryBase URI for the POST query endpoint IBM LDX is a TRS consumer. So it is possible to view the Admin page of that server to see what TRS providers are used as its data sources. This provides a means of determining what information is available in that LDX server. LDM needs to optionally provide some similar mechanism to allow clients to discover the scope of links that are available from that server. It is possible that an OSLC ServiceProvider URL could provide minimal information. This information might also include a means of discovering the predicates that are available. Action items
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
