Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference

05 Jul 2011


See also: IRC log


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


<trackbot> Date: 05 July 2011

<scribe> SCRIBE: gpilz


RESOLUTION: Agenda agreed

Approval of Minutes

RESOLUTION: minutes approved

New Issues

Issue-13016: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13016

<trackbot> Sorry... adding notes to ISSUE-13016 failed, please let sysreq know about it

Gil: looks like a typo

Bob: issue accepted

Doug: it's already been fixed

Bob: any objection to just fixing this?

<Dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13148

RESOLUTION: Doug's proposal accepted

Issue-13148: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13148

<trackbot> Sorry... adding notes to ISSUE-13148 failed, please let sysreq know about it

Doug: Proposal is to just add 'REQUIRED'

RESOLUTION: proposal for Issue-13148 is accepted as proposed

<Dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13151

Issue-13151: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13151

<trackbot> Sorry... adding notes to ISSUE-13151 failed, please let sysreq know about it

Bob: any objections to opening this issue?
... is the text in the spec correct?

Doug: yes the text is correct

RESOLUTION: Issue-13151 resolved as proposed

External Comments

<Bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access-comments/2011Jun/0000.html

Bob: mismatch between namespace in WSDL and the URI of the location of the WSDL

Tom: Do we have a RDDL file for this stuff?

Doug: We do

Tom: It seems this person just needs to be educated (on the difference between the URI and the @targetNamespace)

(confusing dicsussion on possible changes to the RDDL file)

Doug: when you click on the namespace link, you get an HTML page that describes the namespace

Yves: the link to the WSDL is wrong - we have that in the ED copy as well
... I can do the change

Doug: I don't mind doing it, but I need to know what the correct thing is

Yves: dated WSDL reference is wrogn

Doug: assuming we approve the docs, the dated links all get updated again
... perhaps we could just tell this person that things are out of synch now but will come back into synch on the next publishing event

<Dug> birthing activity! ouch!

Bob: who is going to take care of this?

Yves: me

Bob: we need to respond back to Andy
... who would like to do that?
... "we shall correct the RDDL file location at . . . when we publish our PR"
... Yves can you take care of this?

Yves: ok

<Bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access-comments/2011Jun/0001.html

Bob: wondering why faults are not declared in the portType's of the WSDLs (mex, eventing, etc.)
... we don't normally do this sort of thing

Doug: and we won't

Bob: something along the lines of "it has not been the custom to define faults in the portTypes of infrastructure specs like . . ."

Tom: is he talking about event notifications?

Bob: no, he's referring to the XSDs

Tom: we don't define any faults in our spec WSDLs?

Gil: if you define faults in your WSDL they don't appear on the wire the way we say the should
... infrastructure faults versus application faults

Tom: we have a different mapping for our faults than that defined in WSDL

Gil: yes - no WS-* has ever used WSDL-defined faults for error handling

Bob: anyone to volunteer

Gil: I will

Bob: should I create pro-forma issues to track these

Yves: that would be best

Test Status

<Bob> http://www.soaphub.org/interop/status/WSRA

Bob: look like we have met our criteria for 2 interoperable implementations for each specifications
... the exceptions are the metadata specifications (SOAP assertion and EventDescriptions)
... these don't have any direct, on-the wire tests associated with them

<Dug> 8 WS-SOAP Assertions & WS-Event Descriptions While this working group will not explicitly test the use of WS-Policy, this test scenario allows for the inclusion of the WS-SA and WS-EVD policy assertions to appear in the WSDL of the Tracker Service. In doing this the scenario is verifying that the assertions can successfully be included as part of the WSDL/Policy of a service.

Bob: have folks had a chance to take a look at the latest scenario doc?

<Dug> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/test/scenario.html

Bob: is that adequate?
... is there anyone who finds it inadequate

<Bob> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/test/scenario.html

(pause while Ram is updated on progress of meeting)

Bob: seems like we need to change the docs before we go to PR

Doug: will be done within the hour

Bob: seems unfair to ask people to vote based on documents that they have never seen
... better to let everyone review the docs as they will appear for PR
... we've passed all of our exit criteria
... is everyone able to make a meeting on July 12th?
... and is that enough time?

Ram: a few questions?
... there hasn't been any substantive changes since the CR

Bob: true
... people may quibble with things like getting the machine readable artifacts to match with the text of the spec
... but does any member believe there have been substantive changes?


Ram: so all changes have been editorial?

Bob: yes

Ram: assuming that is the case, if the candidate PR drafts are available - i think i may be able to be ready as early as the 12th

Bob: on most of the specs there have been no changes

Doug: i've been doing some spec hygiene
... a couple of typos in eventing and enumeration

Ram: when you send out the drafts, will you send out a diff-marked version relative to the PRs?

Bob: Yves?

Yves: yes I can do that

Bob: we want to diff between the CR and the proposed PR drafts
... those will be valuable when we do the progression anouncement
... Doug, once you have the materials ready - let Yves know

Doug: they are ready now

<Yves> I'll produce them tomorrow morning

Ram: I need roughly 3 days for internal review
... should have them by next Tuesday

Bob: Yves, today or tomorrow would be good
... then we can make the decision next week
... and get to the PR progression before August

Yves: have the diffs ready by my morning (your night)

WS-EVD MIME type status

Bob: Yves - how is this going?

Yves: I will slap Phillipe

Bob: does this need to be nailed down before we do PR

Yves: we do

Bob: tell Phillipe that we would prefer if we didn't end up waiting on the MIME type assignment


<asoldano> bye

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/09/01 14:10:04 $