OData meeting #70, Thursday, 03 Apr 2014, 0800 - 1000 PDT

Note: For explanations of conventions and other formal aspects common to OData TC meeting minutes which are used in this document please cf. “Formal Aspects of Meeting Minutes”.

Meeting chaired by Ralf Handl

1 Roll call

1.1 Members Present:

    Edmond Bourne (BlackBerry)
    Gerald Krause (SAP AG)
    John Willson (Individual)
    Ken Baclawski (Northeastern University)
    Mark Biamonte (Progress Software)
    Martin Zurmuehl (SAP AG)
    Michael Pizzo (Microsoft) a.k.a. Mike
    Ralf Handl (SAP AG)
    Stefan Drees (Individual)
    Susan Malaika (IBM)
    Ted Jones (Red Hat)

Quorum achieved. Details cf. normative attendance sheet for this meeting.

2 Approval of Agenda

Approved as published.

3 Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting(s)

3.1 Approval of Minutes of 2014–03–13 Meeting#69

Meeting minutes approved as published (latest revision) with no objections.

4 Review of Action Items (AI) and Progress

Context:

See the “List of Open Action Items Before the Meeting” section in the appendix.

4.1 Action items due by 2014–04–03 (end of day)

None.

4.2 Action items NOT due by 2014–04–03 (end of day) but MAY be ready for closure

None.

5 Review of Issues List (IL) and Progress

Notes:

5.1 Issues for V4.0_ERRATA01 in New or Open state

5.1.1 OData ABNF Construction Rules

5.1.1.1 ODATA–633

ODATA–633: “Rule pct-encoded-unescaped unintentionally omits hex pairs starting with 7” [component: OData ABNF Construction Rules] is New

Discussion:

Stefan:

I move to resolve ODATA–633 as proposed. Mike seconds.

No further discussion. No objections. The motion passes.

ODATA–633: “Rule pct-encoded-unescaped unintentionally omits hex pairs starting with 7” [component: OData ABNF Construction Rules] is Proposed with no objections.

5.1.2 OData CSDL

5.1.2.1 ODATA–606

ODATA–606: “Specify navigation property binding combined with containment” [component: OData CSDL] is Open

Discussion:

No further discussion. No objections.

ODATA–606: “Specify navigation property binding combined with containment” [component: OData CSDL] is Open.

5.1.3 OData JSON Format

5.1.3.1 ODATA–596

ODATA–596: “Discrepancy between order of elements for geo-positions between GeoJSON and GML may cause interoperability difficulties.” [components: OData JSON Format, OData ATOM Format] is New

Discussion:

No further discussion. No objections.

ODATA–596: “Discrepancy between order of elements for geo-positions between GeoJSON and GML may cause interoperability difficulties.” [component: OData ATOM Format] is Open with no objections.

5.1.3.2 ODATA–587

ODATA–587: “Add example for complex value that is an empty object” [component: OData JSON Format] is New

Discussion:

Mike:

I move to resolve ODATA–587 as proposed. John seconds.

No further discussion. No objections. The motion passes.

ODATA–587: “Add example for complex value that is an empty object” [component: OData JSON Format] is Proposed with no objections.

5.1.3.3 ODATA–592

ODATA–592: “JSON example 11: ‘type’:’Point’ with uppercase P according to GeoJSON spec” [component: OData JSON Format] is New

Discussion:

Stefan:

I move to resolve ODATA–592 as proposed. Martin seconds.

No further discussion. No objections. The motion passes.

ODATA–592: “JSON example 11: ‘type’:’Point’ with uppercase P according to GeoJSON spec” [component: OData JSON Format] is Proposed with no objections.

5.1.3.4 ODATA–594

ODATA–594: “Discrepancy between ATOM and JSON formats (GML, GeoJson) for Polygon information content” [component: OData JSON Format] is New

Discussion:

No further discussion. No objections.

ODATA–594: “Discrepancy between ATOM and JSON formats (GML, GeoJson) for Polygon information content” [component: OData JSON Format] is Open with no objections.

Update:

The issue has been closed by the reporter at 2014-APR–04 with comment: “This issue is a result of my misreading of the GeoJSON spec. There is therefore no change required.” thus:

ODATA–594: “Discrepancy between ATOM and JSON formats (GML, GeoJson) for Polygon information content” [component: OData JSON Format] is Closed with no action by reporter.

5.1.3.5 ODATA–597

ODATA–597: “Seeking clarification of naming for GeographyCollection with GeoJSON” [component: OData JSON Format] is New

Discussion:

Stefan:

I move we resolve ODATA–597 as proposed and ammended in the chat. John seconds.

No further discussion. No objections. The motion passes.

ODATA–597: “Seeking clarification of naming for GeographyCollection with GeoJSON” [component: OData JSON Format] is Proposed with no objections.

5.1.3.6 ODATA–598

ODATA–598: “Update JSON RFC reference” [component: OData JSON Format] is New

Discussion:

Stefan:

I move to resolve ODATA–598 as proposed. Martin seconds.

No further discussion. No objections. The motion passes.

ODATA–598: “Update JSON RFC reference” [component: OData JSON Format] is Proposed with no objections.

5.1.3.7 ODATA–599

ODATA–599: “Let’s update the GeoJSON reference” [component: OData JSON Format] is New

Discussion:

Stefan:

I move to resolve ODATA–599 as proposed. Mike seconds.

Discussion of motion:

ODATA–599: “Let’s update the GeoJSON reference” [component: OData JSON Format] is Proposed with no objections.

5.1.3.8 ODATA–600

ODATA–600: “Ensure future compatibility by reference to draft-bray-i-json-n (The I-JSON Message Format)” [component: OData JSON Format] is New

Discussion:

No further discussion. No objections.

ODATA–600: “Ensure future compatibility by reference to draft-bray-i-json-n (The I-JSON Message Format)” [component: OData JSON Format] is Open with no objections.

5.1.3.9 ODATA–607

ODATA–607: “Section 4.5.4: explicitly state that @odata.count can be applied to expanded to-many navigation properties” [component: OData JSON Format] is New

Discussion:

Mike:

I move we resolve ODATA–607 as proposed, and that editors verify that @odata.nextlink is also explicitly allowed. Martin seconds.

No further discussion. No objections. The motion passes.

ODATA–607: “Section 4.5.4: explicitly state that @odata.count can be applied to expanded to-many navigation properties” [component: OData JSON Format] is Proposed with no objections.

5.1.4 OData Protocol

5.1.4.1 ODATA–634

ODATA–634: “Specify the behaviour when a non-nullable property with no default value is omitted from a PUT” [component: OData Protocol] is New

Discussion:

Mike:

I move we resolve ODATA–634 as proposed. Stefan seconds.

No further discussion. No objections. The motion passes.

ODATA–634: “Specify the behaviour when a non-nullable property with no default value is omitted from a PUT” [component: OData Protocol] is Proposed with no objections.

5.1.4.2 ODATA–635

Note:

We received the public Comment c201403e00002 on 2014–03–27 with title “Non-updatable properties?”. This lead to issue ODATA–635.

ODATA–635: “Clarify if a PUT request is allowed to change the odata.type of the entity (public comment c201403e00002)” [component: OData Protocol] is New

Discussion:

Stefan:

I move to resolve ODATA–635 as proposed. Martin seconds.

No further discussion. No objections. The motion passes.

ODATA–635: “Clarify if a PUT request is allowed to change the odata.type of the entity (public comment c201403e00002)” [component: OData Protocol] is Proposed with no objections.

5.1.4.3 ODATA–632

Note:

This issue was discussed last week as part of ODATA–580 and we decided to close, but the formal motion did not include it.

ODATA–632: “‘Core.OptimisticConcurrencyControl’ should be ‘Core.OptimisticConcurrency’” [component: OData Protocol] is Open

Discussion:

Mike:

I move to close ODATA–632 without action as it is covered by ODATA–580. Stefan seconds.

No further discussion. No objections. The motion passes.

ODATA–632: “‘Core.OptimisticConcurrencyControl’ should be ‘Core.OptimisticConcurrency’” [component: OData Protocol] is Closed with no objections.

5.1.5 OData Protocol, OData CSDL

5.1.5.1 ODATA–636

ODATA–636: “Clarify that complex types and arrays can only be passed to functions through parameter aliases” [components: OData Protocol, OData CSDL] is New

Discussion:

Mike:

I move we resolve ODATA 636 as proposed. John seconds.

No further discussion. No objections. The motion passes.

ODATA–636: “Clarify that complex types and arrays can only be passed to functions through parameter aliases” [components: OData Protocol, OData CSDL] is Proposed with no objections.

6 Next Face-to-Face meeting Thursday May 15 and Friday May 16 in Redmond

6.1 Possibility of Microsoft hosting the F2F?

DIscussion:

Update:

Ballot with question Do you plan to attend this meeting? has been opened. Description: “The OData Technical Committee plans to conduct its 6th face-to-face meeting during May 15–16, 2014 in Redmond, WA. Details: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/event.php?event_id=37713”. Note: The links given here, are the public accessible versions.

7 Next meeting

All agree, that next meeting will be on Apr 24, 0800–1000 PDT

8 AOB

No other business

Meeting adjourned at 0952 PDT.

List of Open Action Items Before the Meeting

Retrieval time stamp: 2014-04-03 12:34 +01:00.

None.

Note: The actual action item processing is documented in section 4 and subsections thereof.

Index of Issues Processed During the Meeting

Note: The actual issue processing is documented in sections 5. The below index has two main parts: First come the public comments (if any), second the JIRA issues. Each list of issues is sorted by ascending issue number. Noted are the ID, the summary and the reference to the relevant subsection where the issue progression has been documented:

Public Comments:

JIRA Issues:

Timeline Reference

Note: Please cf. the current revision of the TC timeline.