Web Services Addressing WG Distributed Meeting

24 Jan 2005


See also: IRC log


Rebecca Bergersen (IONA Technologies, Inc.)
Ugo Corda (SeeBeyond Technology Corporation)
Francisco Curbera (IBM Corporation)
Paul Downey (BT)
Michael Eder (Nokia)
Robert Freund (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Yaron Goland (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Martin Gudgin (Microsoft Corporation)
Arun Gupta (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
Hugo Haas (W3C)
Marc Hadley (Sun Microsystems, Inc.)
Yin-Leng Husband (HP)
Philippe Le Hégaret (W3C)
Mark Little (Arjuna Technologies Ltd.)
Mark Peel (Novell, Inc.)
Harris Reynolds (webMethods, Inc.)
Tom Rutt (Fujitsu Limited)
Greg Truty (IBM Corporation)
Steve Vinoski (IONA Technologies, Inc.)
Pete Wenzel (SeeBeyond Technology Corporation)
Ümit Yalçınalp (SAP AG)
Glen Daniels (Sonic Software)
Jacques Durand (Fujitsu Limited)
Anish Karmarkar (Oracle Corporation)
Jonathan Marsh (Microsoft Corporation)
Jeff Mischkinsky (Oracle Corporation)
Eisaku Nishiyama (Hitachi, Ltd.)
Ales Novy (Systinet Inc.)
David Orchard (BEA Systems, Inc.)
Rich Salz (DataPower Technology, Inc.)
Davanum Srinivas (Computer Associates)
Jiri Tejkl (Systinet Inc.)
Steve Winkler (SAP AG)
Mark Nottingham
Yaron Goland


Call for corrections to the minutes

[postponed until next week]

Review action items

issue 025 done

Hugo Haas to start a mailing list and get concall details for TF. DONE



resolved, will be sent

Asynch Task Force

ACTION: Yin-Leng to send ws-cdl review on behalf of the group

Publishing a working group draft

Chair: We haven't had a draft in a while, need to update, when should we publish another draft?

<TomRutt> +1

<bob> do the draft, don't dodge it

Marc: Do we need a new working group draft and go through a bunch of process or can we just publish a stable URL?

Chair: Don't want to slow editors down, so if Hugo will do the work....

Hugo: I can handle it, it's not a big deal

Chair: Do people want a week to look at the drafts and then we can vote?

Paco: Is the HTML version up to date?

Gudge: No, the XML is up to date, look at that.

<TomRutt> one week is fine

ACTION: Chair will schedule a vote for next week (1/31) to vote on releasing the editor draft

Proposed new issues

<plh> ACTION: Chair will schedule a vote for next week (1/31) to vote on releasing the editor draft

Chair: Issue 42, extensibility model, originated by Glen Danniels, anyone want to own this issue?

<pauld> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i042

Chair: I'll volunteer David Orchard

Chair: Issue 43, Marc, do you mind owning?

Marc: No
... Yes, I"ll own

Gudge: There is a security issue here, it should probably be captured

<plh> Gudge: unless you use qnames in content, it's ok to use exc14n

ACTION: Gudge will be very careful and send text for issue 43

Chair: Issue 44 - we talk about the rules for replying to a message but don't specify what they are

Chair: Hugo, will you take this?

Hugo: Yes

Chair: Is the strawman in the proposal a good starting point?

Hugo: It is pretty detailed but it may not have all the details

Chair: Have people looked at this yet?

General Response: No

Chair: I will put this on the agenda for next week

Chair: Issue 45 - Action defaults don't work with URNs

Chair: Talked about this last week and had an action item for Jonathan to make a proposal and he did that

Chair: Put link into IRC

Chair: Have people looked at this?

Chair: Jonathan isn't here.

Paco: This is what Jonathan brought up at the F2F?

Chair: Yes

<mnot> http://www.w3.org/mid/7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A506385A12@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com

Chair: Oops, wrong URI, let's try again.

Chair: yup

Chair: Looks like a complete proposal for generating a default action

Chair: Do people want to approve this text now or want more time?

Paco: I'm o.k. with it

Marc: Presumably if we run across any nitty problems we can open an issue? I haven't read it in full detail.

Chair: Does anyone object to taking Jonathan's e-mail proposal that is pasted in IRC as the resolution of issue 45?

RESOLUTION: Issue 45 closed using the text in the e-mail in IRC

Chair: Passed

Chair: Another issue not on the agenda, Dims has had a long standing action item to talk to HP about modifying EPRs, he was going to make sure this was a new issue

Chair: We haven't heard anything yet

Chair: We will hold off until he gets on the call

Issue discussion - 17 - purpose of the action property

Chair: Anish isn't here but we were waiting on the resolution of the operation name requirement in the WSDL WG and the WSDL WG did make some forward motion on that last week.

Chair: Anything else we need on this issue? Should we wait for Anish? Did WSDL remove the requirement so we have nothing to discuss?

Paco: Yes

Chair: O.k. we will wait for Anish, there might be some non-normative text but we can leave until next week

Issue 24

Chair: Issue raised by Rebecca

Rebecca: I should go through all the discussions on this issue in other contexts and see if I can outline what the attitudes have been on this so we can then discuss it specifically

Chair: My understanding is that we just need to define a non-meta data specific way of including metadata by reference as well as by value, today we only do it by value

Rebecca: Non-metadata specific way?

Chair: I could write an extension that says this is my kind of EPR metadata that my extension invented and then refer to it, by reference, in the EPR. The issue is to say we should have a generic way of doing that instead of making each extension invent their own mechanism.

Rebecca: What is metadata? What's included and not included in that issue?

Chair: How would that affect the spec?

Rebecca: Our proposal, for example, of having WSDL location. A reference to a service definition was being categorized as being meta-data.
...: We just side stepped the categorization and figured out how to deal with it, but I never figured out why it was metadata. Is anything not defined in the EPR metadata?

Chair: In some sense everything in an EPR is metadata.

Rebecca: Except the URL?

Chair: The address? This is getting us to the identifyer versus non-identifier issue we side stepped with issue 1. Why don't you summarize your thoughts, you already have an action item for that.

Issue 25

Chair: Multiple actions issues, Gudge had an action item that he did complete, you called it regarding issue 9 on the mailing list by mistake?

<plh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0123.html

Gudge: Yes, sorry about that. I proposed language and people pushed back and asked why we need to say anything? People should be able to read.

Chair: Are you o.k. with not adding any text? Other people?

Paco: Sounds fine to me

Gudge: The editors suggested clarifying text and the group said no

Chair: Do we need more text on this? The simplest proposal would be to close the issue with no action.

Philippe: Let's close it

Chair: Does anyone object to closing issue 25 with no action?

RESOLUTION: Issue 25 closed, the group affirmed that there is only one action

Issue 26

Chair: There hasn't been much discussion on this yet, Steve or Rebecca would you like to referesh our memory?

Steve: We want to have a way for services with multiple addresses to be able to advertise those addresses in one structure and apps wanting to talk to that app can pick up the structure and use the one that works best.
...: I put in some proposals, a suggestion to augment the EPR with additional port information and the other is to come up with a different structure to contain multiple EPRs. I didn't get a lot of feedback.
... I got contacted by IBM and MS to talk about it and work on it as a proposal but we haven't made much progress. I've been after these guys but we are just now getting to the point where we might start working.

Chair: My concern is that where we are in the schedule if that is something we can do in a short amount of time if there is interest but if it is going to blow out the schedule I'm getting concerned. I haven't seen interest on the list. Are people interested in this?

Paco: We are quite interested in this and Steve is right that we talked and didn't follow up in a timely fashion and I would be happy to take a joint action item with him
...: To bring something quickly to the list

Chair: If you folks can coordinate and start the discussion I'd like to see direction, either a new proposal or direction toward an existing proposal.

ACTION: Steve will refresh the discussion on issue 26

<TomRutt> I would like an explanation why the service element of epr is not good enough

Issue 41

Chair: Hugo, did you find that e-mail?

Hugo: Unfortunately no. What I do remember is that we have the choice of either limiting our contributions to the member organizations or to open it up to other people. Basically when members are going to contribute they should put their contribution under the W3C document license and that gives us the right to do whatever we want with it in terms of republishing but they still own the copyright. I think it gets more complex for people outside the

Chair: If you could keep digging on that

<plh> http://www.w3.org/2004/06/29-testcases

Phillipe: We have a policy on this and the (link included in IRC) will answer all questions

Chair: We will look at that and once we have the test case situation together we can decide on the issue

Chair: Harris, last week at the f2f on issue 41, the resolution was that we needed something more specific on the message exchange patterns and different part of the SOAP stack in use. So we could test this version of WSDL, SOAP with this transport binding and this pattern, etc.

Chair: Recognizing there are other test cases we need to cover in the future we would need this for issue 22. We gave Anish an action item to help you to develop the template but he is on vacation and couldn't complete the item by Friday.

Chair: I'm wondering if someone else who was at the meeting could take an action item to help Harris out with this? Anyone?

Chair: Anish will be out for the entire week so if he isn't back until next week we wouldn't see another go at that for another couple of weeks and not get input for a couple of weeks after that. I'm hoping this is the data that would help the asynch task force with its work.

Chair: Is anyone who was at the F2F willing to help Harris?

Bob: I'll help

ACTION: Bob will help Harris and CC the Chair so he can help as well, will get work on that for next week for issue 41

Chair: O.k. thanks everyone! Talk to you next week

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Bob will help Harris and CC the Chair so he can help
... as well, will get work on that for next week for issue 41
[NEW] ACTION: Chair will schedule a vote for next week (1/31) to
... vote on releasing the editor draft
[NEW] ACTION: Gudge will be very careful and send text for issue 43
[NEW] ACTION: Steve will refresh the discussion on issue 26
[NEW] ACTION: Yin-Leng to send ws-cdl review on behalf of the group
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.109 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/01/24 21:36:05 $