IRC log of ws-cg on 2002-03-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

I see Marsh, Hugo, Fallside, EricM, ChrisF
Additional action items form last week:
hugo to invite them to participate in mailing list and maybe invite them as observer to next f2f
Action: inform XML CG on our rotating rep - DONE
hh to clean irc log and post to pubic list
Action: remind us on status reports
- we are all late
- if you haven't done it for today, do it after the meeting.
- These are three line versions.
Action: hugo to invite Global Grid - DONE
Action: hugo to clean and post irc - DONE
(Actually, "Action:" is a bad term - looks like new actions :-(
XML CG report from Chris:
David: Anything we can learn from this?
Chris: We're already public, so probably not.
David: We should notice that the briefing package will include a request for feedback.
Hugo: Additional agenda item: WSCL ack'd the WSCL submission from HP.
Hugo: Plans to send an announcement to the Arch group, maybe others.
s/WSCL/W3C/ (first)
Hugo: Has some hooks into WSDL that WS-Desc might be interested in.
Semantic web: Hugo gave a report last week.
Eric: IRC logs look fairly complete.
David: Anything else we need to do?
Eric: Relationships expressed in the activity charter - RDF interest group work is underway.
Eric: Trying to avoid last-minute requirements through a general awareness.
XML CG: Coverred that - we have a rep and a regular report.
WSI: Do we need to say much about this yet?
Hugo: We don't have a whole lot more information on it.
If in this process the Working Group finds solutions that are agreed to be improvements over solutions suggested by WSDL 1.1, those improved solutions should be used. However, the Working Group should not make arbitrary changes, i.e. without technical reasons, and it should be easy to convert a WSDL 1.1 description into the new format designed.
previous entry is a quote from the WSD charter
Jonathan: Some discussion in WSDL on whether the group should define WSDL 1.1 or 2.0. Charter is just vague enough to allow such a conversation.
Someone proposed that WSDL 1.1 might be maintained by WS-I.
Chris: Perhaps starting from the ground up would be easier. SOAP was difficult.
David: Schema experience says that blank slates can be difficult too.
David: It take a surprisingly long time before participants develop a working understanding.
David: WGs maybe should go off on a retreat together and climb ropes or something :-)
Chris: We're struggling with not having a FTF yet, so it's hard to do requirements.
(FTFs on April 8-12)
Chris: It's crazy to have 8 weeks before first FTF.
David: In XP charter or call for participation, there was a tentative date, and we counted 8 weeks from that date.
Hugo: We thought about meeting in France, but we didn't know how long it would take to get it formed.
Hugo: One member objected to endrunning the 8 week notice, so there is some risk.
David: Getting off the ground is killed by the 8 week notice.
Eric: We need to reflect this back to the process.
Chris: We should bake the kick-off FTF within two weeks of the formation of the group into any new WS WGs.
David: Great one for the AB.
David: Ask your AC reps as well.
Jonathan: But it still takes a year to develop a shared view of the problem space of any WG.
Jonathan: Mailing list not as active as it could be.
Chris: +1, even though trying to assign champions.
General agreement that we should address the initial 8 week rule.
(Skipping OASIS, going right on to scheduling)
we should get OASIS back on next agenda
Jonathan: April FTF collocated in San Jose.
David: Get schedule up.
Jonathan: 50% east coast, 30% west coast, 20% europe - want to locate appropriately.
Jonathan: Washington in Sept.
Chris: Offer from Nortel in Ottowa
Hugo: Asked Inria if they could host a meeting (or two) in Sophia.
Roquencourt is possible.
Hugo: Canon also might host both, with W3C paying for one. But the cost difference might be prohibitive.
Jonathan: Perhaps others can pitch in some sponsorship money too.
Chris: We need to find out what the costs are.
Chris: Also joint meetings between the groups.
Jonathan: We should plan on this for future meetings.
Hugo: Proposal for moving forward - Philippe asked Canon for cost breakdown.
If it's cheap enough, we'll hold a bake sale for funds.
If not, we'll try for Inria.
you mean if it *isn't* cheap enough, we go for bake sale solution
No, I meant, if it's really expensive, the bake sale will likely fail.
ahhh, now i see what you meant:)
Chris: Free August?
Jonathan: Description already has August free.
David: Good, but if we're in the last stages of Last Call it may be hard to skip.
David: Hopefully, we'll be done by August.
Jonathan: Should the CG take August off?
David: Tentatively.\
Chris: Works for me.
Hugo: Good.
ACTION: Calendar should have August reserved. Hugo?
Next meeting in 2 weeks
WS_WSCG()1:00PM has ended
RRSAgent, actions?
I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'actions'
RRSAgent, help
Jonathan: ACTION: Chris to check Sept dates in Washington with Arch Group.
ACTION: Chris to check Sept dates in Washington with Arch Group.
RRSAgent, show action items
I see 2 action items:
ACTION: Calendar should have August reserved. Hugo? [1]
recorded in
ACTION: Chris to check Sept dates in Washington with Arch Group. [2]
recorded in
Zakim, please excuse us
RRSAgent, please excuse us