OSLC Working group meeting1 PLM extensions proposal feedback Updated from OSLC workgroup call 18/10/11

OSLC Working group meeting2 Status Proposal for PLM extensions available Draft PLM Spec posted Core workgroup Oct 5 th Exchanges and feedback gathered

OSLC Working group meeting3 Feedback summary 1.“Demonstrate more of the need for these in the scenario” 2.“Show more of a high level overview of the key concepts” 3.“Show how these align to what is available in the existing Specs, especially SCM” 4.“Clarify what is being proposed for Core extensions” 5.“Clarify if any of the PLM extensions can be prioritised (taken first and others postponed)”

OSLC Working group meeting4 What is being proposed Product domain OSLC Spec Extensions to OSLC Core Spec

OSLC Working group meeting5 What product resource behaviour not addressed in the proposal ? Coding and classification Alias / alternative –sameAs is a possible dcterms to apply here Lifecycle states Change notification Approvals

OSLC Working group meeting6 Key concepts being proposed 1 of 2 – Basics and version handling ConceptCapabilityPLM scenario Sufficiency ? Distinct / Unambiguous Core extensions PLM Spec Expected position on consensus 1Product resourceDistinct way of hosting a set of product behaviours Starting point see out of scope items YesNAShallYes, as domain spec 2Product identification by way of preferred usage of existing definitions Basic product identification Starting point see out of scope items Propose to adopt additional std extensions Only by usage convention Shall Yes, if clarify how identify available resource behaviour. Identifier role is set by Core. 3Base resource + specific versions Optional Version handling Make more explicitYesMay Yes. SCM Resource can still have its own versioning capability. 4isVersionOfOptional Version handling Make more explicitYes based on dcterms May Concerns raised about applicability. Version identifier ? 5hasVersionOptional Version handling OptionalYes based on dcterms May Can address through inference 6replacesOptional Version handling OptionalYes based on dcterms May Yes, many SCM tools support 7replacedByOptional Version handling OptionalYes based on dcterms May Tool dependent Can address through inference

OSLC Working group meeting7 Key concepts being proposed 2 of 2 Structure and Effectivity ConceptCapabilityPLM scenario Sufficiency ? Distinct / Unambiguous Core extensions PLM Spec Expected position on consensus 8Resource view as a means of showing composition StructureNeed to look at how multiple domain views are supported Change Set in CM Collection in RM Baseline in SCM Configuration in SCM May Clarify against comparable OSLC concepts 9hasPart to a product view URI StructureYesYes based on dcterms May Yes. RDFS member may have specific container semantics 10isPartOfStructureOptionalMay Can address through inference 11URI constructed from Application unique ID Link within a structure YesMay 12Association of View with Version using subject StructureAllows multiple domain views per version NoMay 13Association at the view level StructureNeed to look at change handling behaviour By usage convention May Consider linking at the version with effectivity resolution 14Variant expressions as anotation on link Effectivity handlingMay need a more visible / explicit form of variant handling TBD Alternative is to provide a more flexible set of parameters and expressions

OSLC Working group meeting8 Other issues and comments 1 of 2 1.Traversing of isVersionOf to get to a base to find another version – show in Scenario 2.Locking the creation of Versions e.g. for Baseline resource immutability 3.Clarify use of Requirements collection (vs a RequirementsView 4.Dynamic processing by Resources to provide a new URI e.g. of a variant expression. Do we have a need for this in the scenario (new use case)

OSLC Working group meeting9 Other issues and comments 2 of 2 5.Identifier is retained by Core, within the scope of a specific service provider, so the PLM Spec should not try to say more 6.Aim to avoid URI encoding 7.Backlinks should be avoided within a repository, unnecessary overhead on change 8.Use of RDFS member instead of hasPart not agreed as it refers more to a container member and may restrict usage with multiple parents

OSLC Working group meeting10 Next step Clarify the detailed versioning needs within the scenario Illustrate through RDF