Review minutes – Chris hasn’t incorporated Mark’s changes yet into 16-May minutes, will do for next week.
Action on Chris to incorporate the changes to the minutes.
Some close ballots, trying to get to yes.
Chris asks for agreement on 23-May 2002 minutes, they are approved.
Item 4 : Action items.
Chris first action, not done, promised for tomorrow.
Next action is done.
Daniel 6.11 – editors done
Ws Desc feedback report sent to list = done
Chris to redraft DAC 0.11 to include AC 10, done
DAC009 with Hugo, Chris, done, cover the result of that on the agenda
Status report:
Face to face – total is 39 people responded. 24 registered to attend. Encourage anyone who is planning to attend, today is the last day EOB.Please register regrets if not attending.
Someone make sure Tom Carrol’s name is entered? He’s on vacation and can’t register through the system. (Daniel will send email to hosts and Chris to let them know.) Send to Johan Paulsen and copy the others, email address on logistics page.
Strong encouragement to register.
Not sure if wireless/internet access will be available for F2F. Worked out agenda for joint meeting, intros, status and direction from each WG chair, about 15-20 minutes, first hour, then about an hour to do a presentation on use cases, scenarios, application frameworks etc. Someone on use case team to do that. Possibly with examples so people can recognize distinctions. Show how link use cases to scenarios, perhaps – 30 minutes, then Q&A for another hour. Then depending on the requirements feedback from Mike and Daniel, session where we have requirements with some bearing on description WG.Morning of Wed the 12th.Can continue in the afternoon as appropriate. No complete schedule yet, some flexibility in the afternoon to allow break out sessions etc.
Action item on USTF agenda to discuss the presentation. Dave Hollander.
Editor meeting this week – get SSH keys sent off to Hugo so we can create accounts for you. Better to deal with CVS directly to help multiple editors.
Deadline for changes is today.
USTF update Dave – began to get organized, this week will turn into specific action items and process to move ahead.
Item 6: Balloting for 5&6 concluded last night. Better turnout than last time, thanks from the chair. Chris sent summary out last night, asks for approval to and remove draft status. No objections. Aforementioned items are hereby approved, and will remove draft status.
Editors: Remove draft designation associated with Item 6.
Next batch, seemed to be close to agreement. One or two D votes, indicating further discussion might be needed.
Discussion around architectures for scalability – Mike’s wording more accurate – a scalable architecture document doesn’t make sense. Discussion on architecture promoting implementations that were scalable.
Action item to editors to adopt revised wording.
AC000.2.1 – very close – reduce complexity item – feedback was I don’t know what it’s saying, suggested edits. Action for editors to rearrange the text. Approved with that proviso – draft status will be removed.
3.1 – deferred
3.2 – separate design time from runtime aspects. Requirement for WS Desc WG?Roger did not understand both sides of the item equally. Second statement is out of scope? Design time is out of scope, isn’t it?
Doug – can someone provide a better justification for this being one of our goals rather than something like a rechartered description WG.Chris – table this and work on it a bit more. Too many “live withs”.
Dave wants to explain it – look at WSDL right now, people design things to be layered or separated out. But WSDL doesn’t give you schemas that you can validate as to whether it has only the abstract or concrete descriptions.
Chris – maybe this is more of a requirement for the WS Description group?Ok, leave this as a draft.
Action: Dave Hollander to kick off the discussion to try to resolve.
12.5
Two D’s everyone else agreed. Mark Baker one of the Ds.
Editorial item: editors to clarify around “level” – remove draft status with this proviso.
12.6
Two Ds, Roger is one. Change “shall” to “may?” But my concern is to give consideration to existing standards (Kurt) in specifications.
May improves it for Roger, Mark can live with it? Phrasing once again the problem.
Resolution: editors remove 12.6.
B – take as a block – mostly section 5, Chris proposes to approve them, and leave to editors to rephrase as statements.
One D on 5.2 – all subgoals are phrased as questions, should all be rephrased as imperatives.
Resolution: Editors to Rephrase all requirements as imperatives, in particular 5.1 through 5.12. Approved with that proviso. Remove draft status and rephrase as statements, all block B.
Block C
Suggestion to remove. Resolution 008.3 and 13.1 (?) to be removed by editors.
Next block – weighted toward things the group didn’t like.
2.1.2.1, 2.1.3,
Daniel Austin has to leave the call at 1:35 PDT.
Chris proposes that if someone wants these back in, they can propose a suggestion for changing them.
Doug – would like to keep 2.3.1 – did propose some new wording.Doug to spark the discussion and seek resolution toward conclusion on keeping the item.
2.2.2.1 - ?
Don’t remove 5.7 yet, roll 5.5 through 5.8 into one thing, make a proposal etc. Action on Srinivas for next week. Doesn’t make sense to remove all of them.
2.3.1 removed
3.6 removed
5.12 – removed
Item 7:
Revised prposal for AC 20. Hugo, David, Eric P. and Chris discussed AC 20 and AC009, and came up with proposals to address the comments from last week. For AC20 the text is in the agenda. Is there any discussion? Would go in as draf and replace everything that’s currently there.
No objections to adding this as draft.
Editors replace AC20 with text in the agenda.
Item 8: proposed replacement for DAC009 and its subordinates. Web friendly, semantic web CSF.Should avoid any unnecessary misalignment with Semantic web. Then also covers 9.3 – conceptual elements identified by URI, no requirement therefore to say anything about RDF. 9.2 language was proposed last week but discussion deferred pending revision.
Frank McCabe brings up alternative proposal, just sent email. Wants a stronger statement about metadata. Table Item 8, everyone review Frank’s counter proposal, review on next week’s call.
Item 9: Yin Leng – reviews feedback on CHAR MOD last call document. Highlight conformance requirements placed on WSAWG, second part actual feedback to I18N group. Feedback first – mostly editorial comments, and a number of non editorial but minor comments. Not likely to affect our WG specifically.
Like to talk about requirements this spec is putting on WSAWG – because we haven’t defined any specs, we are not affected yet, but as we define specs, we have to bear in mind the conformance requirements for I18N. Maybe we need another requirement for keeping I18N in mind, or to conform to all requirements in the charmod spec.?
Maybe we need to include IRIs, i.e. internationalized URIs…
Feedback due to charmod WG today (two hours ago). We can send it anyway.
David Booth – are URIs a subset of IRIs? Joe: Are IRIs Unicode based URIs?
Yin-Leng – URIs are subsets of IRIs, so every URI is an IRI.
Implications of IRI are broad.
TAG has asked for a one week extension on feedback.
Action: submit feedback. If anyone has further comments, another 6-7 hours remain.
End – no time for last item. Feedback for Mike, Ws Desc write up ,review and work witih Mike on email list to go over any issues they might have with it.
Wrap up our discussion on the list and then once consensus, send via email to Desc groui before F2F, then address concerns at F2F. Deal with it during joint meeting.