IRC log of ws-cg on 2002-05-28

[hugo]
Zakim, who is here?
[Zakim]
I see Jonathan, Fallside, Hugo
[chris]
joining presently
[DavidF]
agenda:
1. Aciot items
[chris]
s/aciot/action/
[hugo]
agenda+ Action items
[DavidF]
1. Action items
agenda+ CG report
agenda+ Progress on new WG charters
[Marsh]
agenda+ joint session at Paris FTF?
[hugo]
agenda+ MEP coordination
agenda+ WS/SW discussions in WSAWG
[DavidF]
em ru calling
[em]
hmm...
[hugo]
em, we got your voicemail :)
[em]
arrg...
[hugo]
Zakim, what is the agenda?
[Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
1. Action items [from hugo]
2. CG report [from DavidF]
3. Progress on new WG charters [from DavidF]
4. joint session at Paris FTF? [from Marsh]
5. MEP coordination [from hugo]
6. WS/SW discussions in WSAWG [from hugo]
[hugo]
-----
1. Action items [from hugo]
[em]
whew..
[hugo]
Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-cg/2002May/0002.html
ACTION: Eric to have RDF-core, WebOnt, and? review SOAP Data Model, determine initial assessment as to whether it is 2" or 2mi apart from their DLG model and give feedback [CONTINUED]
EM: currently: mixed opinions
... do people want to see snapshots of this assessment?
... I don't see the group making a last minute request for huge changes
... I will collect and merge comments
... taking longer than expected
DF: estimated date?
EM: hopefully ready by next meeting
... can we envision a workshop or joint meeting after LC in order to go from 2" to 0"?
... our comments don't guarantee any change in your spec
DF: hard to know without seeing the comments
EM: we will have a problem if we are 2" away, not if we are 2mi away
[ for conciliation purposes ]
DF: because of the lack of a GET mapping, we will be several weeks late for LC
ACTION: DavidF to investigate charter writing [PENDING]
-----
2. CG report [from DavidF]
Not much to report
[DavidF]
s/DavidF/ChrisF/
[hugo]
CF: Schema will review WSDWG reqs after republication
-----
3. Progress on new WG charters [from DavidF]
[DavidF]
s/DavidF/ChrisF/
[hugo]
CF: We continued discussion
... the WG needs to put things together and start the architecture document
[DavidF]
issue of how complete does the Arch need to be before new WGs can be started?
[hugo]
... discussion: how complete the architecture document need to be to take some initial decisions?
... current plan: get a draft proposal by end of July
... discussions: security, reliable messaging, some sort of choreography
[DavidF]
... likely new WG priority ordering: security (1), choreography/routing (3), reliability (2)
[hugo]
JM: is the CG the right place to write a charter?
DF: WSAWG should come up with scope
CF: we need to know what we are expecting from WSAWG
... reqs and scoping
HH: difficult to know when we can say we have a good enough view; we will have to draw the line at some point
CF: 2 points oy views: people who think that it will take 6 weeks, others think that it will take 9 months
[DavidF]
... DF: one way to answer question is to write the arch doc at the level necessary to write charters
.... and then the question is reduced to how many sections/areas does it need to address to be coherent as a whole
[em]
time check, please
[hugo]
Summarry:
Come up with an architecture which is at the same level as a charter looks like a good idea.
s/Come/Coming/
-----
Next call: Tue 4 June
Remaining agenda:
Zakim, what is the agenda?
[Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
4. joint session at Paris FTF? [from Marsh]
5. MEP coordination [from hugo]
6. WS/SW discussions in WSAWG [from hugo]
[hugo]
Zakim, please excuse us
RRSAgent, what actions?
[RRSAgent]
I see 2 action items:
ACTION: Eric to have RDF-core, WebOnt, and? review SOAP Data Model, determine initial assessment as to whether it is 2" or 2mi apart from their DLG model and give feedback [CONTINUED] [1]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/28-ws-cg-irc#T17-12-47
ACTION: DavidF to investigate charter writing [PENDING] [2]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/05/28-ws-cg-irc#T17-34-09
[hugo]
RRSAgent, please excuse us