1/9/2003 telcon – Minutes
Apple - Mike Brumbelow
BEA Systems - David Orchard
Boeing Company- Gerald Edgar
Carnegie Mellon University - Katia Sycara
Chevron Texaco - Roger Cutler
Cisco Systems Inc - Sandeep Kumar
France Telecom - Shishir Garg
Fujitsu - Frank McCabe
Hewlett-Packard Company - Zulah Eckert
IBM - Heather Kreger
IONA - Eric Newcomer
Ipedo - Alex Cheng
Nokia - Michael Mahan
Oracle Corporation - Jeff Mischkinsky
Progress - Colleen Evans
SAP - Sinisa Zimek
SeeBeyond Technology Corp - Ugo Corda
Software AG - Michael Champion
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Doug Bunting
The Thomson Corporation - Hao He
TIBCO Software, Inc.- Scott Vorthmann
W. W. Grainger, Inc.- Daniel Austin
W3C - David Booth
W3C - Hugo Haas
AT&T - Mark Jones
EDS - Waqar Sadiq
IBM - Chris Ferris
Mitre - Paul Denning
Nortel - Abbie Barbir
TIBCO - Don Mullen
W. W. Grainger - Tom Carroll
1. Confirm scribe
Ugo Corda will scribe.
2. Approval of minutes
3. Action items review
ACTION: Chris to review WSD Requirements WD and summarize any potential arch
Sent out note to WSD [didn’t quite get who sent it out and when]
ACTION: Hugo to clean up capitalization of web services in glossary.
Done. Addressed capitalization in a consistent way throughout as “Web services”.
ACTION: MikeC to summarize RM threads for Arch document.
ACTION: Hugo will contact P3P people to suggest meeting at Plenary in march.
TAG decided to raise this issue. ID attributes and XML Base currently being discussed by TAG.
Concept of XML Profile discussed with Core WG. TAG will recommend to AC to amend Core WG Charter to produce Profile document.
Rationale: different subsets of XML already used by different specs, e.g. XML DSig and SOAP. Tools need to interoperate.
Cover things like XSLT?
Only those specs used for 80% of the cases.
Too early to put XML Schema in the Profile.
Wireless companies support the Profile idea
Not necessary to introduce a whole Profile. Just small changes required.
Many recent industry discussions about subsetting XML Schema, more than XML. Why not address Schema in XML Profile?
We know that a Schema subset for small devices already exists
A standard XML Profile is needed and WSA should support it. We can stay open on details. Wordsmith on mailing list, then send message to TAG.
Seems that WSA is not very interested in the issue. Let’s take a poll.
Informal poll: send resonse to TAG or not
W3C IP rules consistent with WS-Reliability’s RF goal.
We need to discuss RM in F2F.
W3C is the right organization for submission (personal opinion).
WS-Reliability group’s goal is to do as much as possible in public, and very quickly.
At this point we need to speed up WSA’s analysis and proposal for new RM WG.
Concerned about IBM and Microsoft not participating.
Alignment with ebXML because there are not many other different technical solutions to refer to.
WSA can contact WS-Reliability spec authors, and also look at other specs that should be included for review by the new WG.
It’s a no brainer to support RM activity. Why wait for F2F?
Why didn’t the authors just reference Ch. 6 of ebXML spec?
Authors wanted to narrow down the ebXML spec, and remove any references to other chapters.
Vice versa, could ebXML just refer to WS-Reliability?
It’s a possibility.
Other companies that are not in the list of authors for WS-Reliability have also worked on RM.
Too early to propose new WG based on this spec.
Necessity for RM discussions.
Discovey issue raised by Hugo and DavidB to be added to agenda.
WS Internationalization will have observer at F2F who will give overview.
Some arguments go on and on for more than a year. No point in discussing those at F2F. Mailing list discussions are sufficient to capture the results of these discussions.
Some people might think WS takes away resources that should be dedicated to Semantic Web.
DaveB: add discussion on glossary terms.
Add breakout session to discuss REST issues.
Add breakout session for editors to discuss how to finalize some discussions.