Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference

23 Feb 2010


See also: IRC log


Alessio Soldano, Red Hat
Ashok Malhotra, Oracle Corp.
Asir Vedamuthu, Microsoft Corp.
Bob Freund, Hitachi, Ltd.
Doug Davis, IBM
Gilbert Pilz, Oracle Corp.
Katy Warr, IBM
Li Li, Avaya Communications
Martin Chapman, Oracle Corp.
Ram Jeyaraman, Microsoft Corp.
Sreedhara Narayanaswamy, CA
Tom Rutt, Fujitsu, Ltd.
Vikas Varma, Software AG
Yves Lafon, W3C/ERCIM
Bob Natale, MITRE Corp.
David Snelling, Fujitsu, Ltd.
Fred Maciel, Hitachi, Ltd.
Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle Corp.
Mark Little, Red Hat
Orit Levin, Microsoft Corp.
Paul Fremantle, WSO2
Paul Nolan, IBM
Prasad Yendluri, Software AG
Wu Chou, Avaya Communications
David Snelling, Fujitsu, Ltd.
Bob Freund, Hitachi, Ltd.
Li Li, Avaya Communications


<trackbot> Date: 23 February 2010

<Bob> scribe:


8306 added to agenda by agreement

minutes of feb 16

RESOLUTION: minutes of 2010-02-16 approved w/o objection

Frag - combined proposal for 8193 and 8185

<Dug> proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Feb/att-0022/wsfrag-8193-8185-v5.doc

dug: introduce high level editorial changes
... move x-path to section 3.xx
... from section 7
... clarify "replace" and "insert" semantics
... define "insert" as always the child of the target
... eliminate "child" vs. "sibling" ambiguity
... a table of samples to show how everything works

ram: need more time

katy: is xsd validation sufficient?

dug: we could add more text

bob: conclude by next week?

ram: not sure

bob: on agenda next week


<Dug> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/10/02/MOAPv2.zip

dug: introduce the changes to mex
... changes in seciton 3, swap section 4,5, section 6, section 11
... section 12 is new for bootstrapping
... and changes to xsd and wsdl
... question about example 8-2

ashok: ok with it

ram: remove line 6 and the corresponding text

dug: need more time until next meeting

<Dug> I think it would be unfair to accept it today - most people haven't had a chance to review it yet

asir: if we allow policy in addressing, we think it's premature

bob: any issue for that assertion?

asir: we need to describe the semantics associated with the assertion
... an example is premature without behavior

gil: adding text will address your concern?

asir: there is a guideline on what can be asserted

dug: how about extensibility?

<gpilz> can we get a reference on where WS-Policy states that you MUST enumerate the allowable sub-assertions?

asir: you can insert anything, but have to describe the assertion behavior
... drop it and open a new issue

ashok: this is not a nested policy, it's an outer policy applied to the endpoint

tom: assertion has to come with behavior/semantics

asir: if it's not a nested, then it is ok; remove it and open a new issue

katy: need more time on it

li: need more time to read it

dug: open issue at example 12-1

bob: anothe week is sufficient?
... please don't bashing each other over the head on nonnormative examples
... is this proposal covering all the issues?

dug: yes

ram: it is useful in general,
... suggest shortening it for time sake


<Bob> proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Feb/0017.html

<Dug> Gil's comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Feb/0025.html

ram: describing the proposal

gil: three terms is confusing

dug: i'm ok with the proposal if we merge the terms

<Dug> go with "consumer"

RESOLUTION: 8306 resolved w/o objection with the proposal but using the word "consumer"

8886 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8886

<Dug> Note, a (subscription|enumeration context) expiring is not considered to be an unexpected termination, therefore a xxxEnd message MUST NOT be sent in this case.

bob: objection to accepting it now instead of LC?
... can we break moratorium to accept it?
... 8886 is accepted w/o objection

gil: the proposal is correct, as expiry is not unexpected

ram: not sending xxxEnd is going too far

dug: why not say it?

gil: ram's solution allows sending End when subscription expires
... leaving wiggle room is not good

yves: i'm ok with it and CWNA

katy: propose is clarify the implicity behavior

ram: timer may go wrong and we need to send End in that case

<Dug> new words for the spec: Acts of God MUST NOT occur. :-)

<Yves> how about cosmic radiations flipping bits in memory? MUST NOT occur? :)

ram: if the system detects that abnormality
... come up with some text

bob: happier if we close it today

dug: it only says timeout does not trigger End event, not prohibiting anything else triggering it

ram: propose new text...
... if timeout is normal, don't send; but allows other cases

bob: it is a LC issue then because no agreement
... has been reached after live discussion
... it will delay our LC schedule

browser disconnected

bob: let's work on the agenda

<Ashok> Bob: We agreed to the agenda. This issue was added at the end ... I would rather focus on substantive issues

<Ashok> ... if this issue is not quick to resolve, let's move on

bob: not permiting changing of business order
... that has been agreed
... other business?

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/03/09 17:50:23 $