Time | Item | Who | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
5 min | Admin: Call plan | All | Leader: Nigel; (Not available: n/a) Leader: Bernd; (Not available: Scott) Leader: Kam; (Not available: Bernd) Leader: Scott; (Not available: Italo) Leader: Nigel; (Not available: Scott) Cancelled Cancelled Leader: Bernd; (Not available: Italo) |
3 min | Action items due/done | All | IISOMI Action Items done or past due
|
10 min | Italo's request | Scott | Add a section to print out abstractions Note that the following has been added to Abstractions: How to dump the properties specify with target string and specify with condition Add IsLeaf to an enumeration Print the constraint between the relationship from within the referenced context. Note that the following has been added to Publishing constraints using gendoc Tool may be complex and hence best to not put in object class. Constraint should be in a separate section. Reference to context from within the constraint. It was noted that there is no guideline for the name of a constraint. It was concluded that this should be UpperCamel case (as currently defined for xor). Bernd Zeuner Generalize the rule on naming of constraints (currently only mentions xor) |
40 min | Bernd | Italo's request Note that the discussion below has been added to «Specify» relationship It was noted that the statement above indicates that the augmenting class must be abstract. The tooling and the UML-YANG guidelines indicate that the augmenting class can be concrete. TAPI uses concrete augmenting class. Italo has a problem with this in the example below. In the example above it is not clear how the specify relationship was formed. In the above example, if TopologyContext was abstract the _topology attribute would appear in TapiContext in the instance. The figure below is not correct as the augmenting class is concrete. Two choices:
Bernd Zeuner Regarding concrete v abstract augmenting class, provide figures to support further discussion and decision. Also discussed: Italo confirmed that this was now covered. Discussed. Note that the discussion below has been added to Root element issues Bernd questioned whether this should be MainModel or MainModule. Note that the discussion below has been added to «Specify» relationship Agreed that the use of model/module is just a a string and does not need to be translated by the tool. The above diagram is not correct as it implies that the target must be a root element but it is not shown as such. As any class can be augmented the diagram should be generalized to show a partial string in the target such as /xxx/ etc. Bernd Zeuner redraw/clarify various figures as clarified above | |
X min | AOB | none |