See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 03 February 2009
<Bob> meeting: WS-RA WG Teleconference
<Bob> scribenick: Ashok
<Bob> scribe: Ashok Malhotra
<Bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0009.html
Agenda accepted
<Yves> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0009.html
Issue 6427 was noted as approved with amendements. However, there were no amendments in the minutes.
Bob: Please send mail with amendments to the issue
... Did not see amendments in bugzilla
... this not asking for approval of minutes as they are incomplete
Also, discussion was in progress on issue 6429 but not concluded
scribe: Please send mail on 6429 is there is more than there is in the minutes
Bob: I will put 6472 on today's agenda
Geoff introduces issue
Issue accepted w/o objection. Assigned to Geoff
Geoff: Same thing except for enum
Issue accepted w/o objection. Assigned to Geoff
Dependent on 6398
Issue accepted w/o objection. Assigned to Geoff
Geoff: Need namespace policy and namespace change policy
Issue accepted w/o objection. Assigned to Geoff
<marklittle> +1
Bob: This is important to us so I propose to move it up to the top of today's agenda
... No objections to moving it up. We will move to first item on issue list discussion today
Yves: Not yet created questionnaire. Will do so asap
... will also update admin page with details
<Bob> ACTION: Yves to update admin page with f2f logistics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/03-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - Update admin page with f2f logistics [on Yves Lafon - due 2009-02-10].
<Bob> ACTION: Yves to open a poll to determine attendance [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/03-ws-ra-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - Open a poll to determine attendance [on Yves Lafon - due 2009-02-10].
Doug: All 5 specs converted
They have been out since Friday
Geoff: We have not reviewed yet
<dug> ashok - mex date is now fixed
Bob: Links shd go on the homepage ... need to decide the namespace issue first
<Yves> I will make a snapshot anyway, once it's considered stable (for publication)
Asir: Could we get a tagged version
Bob: After namespace change could we approve in 10 business days
<asir> ... Good job editors!
Doug: Do we need acknowledgements?
<dug> no preference
<Yves> how about adding the submissions as informative references? (to link to ack indirectly)
<asir> are there any pub rulese regarding acknowledgements?
Ashok: Argues remove names in the Acknowledgements section
<Yves> asir; no
<asir> k
Agreed
Yves: Do we need to link from the WD to the Member Submission?
No objections
<asir> no ... informative references
Editors to add reference to Member Submissions
Geoff: What shd namespace URI be?
<asir> i agree with Bob that Director's approval is not required
<Yves> everything in /ns/ would require one, this is not the case here
<Geoff> Proposal:
<Geoff> We propose we follow the W3C recommendation for namespace URIs and use the
<Geoff> following URIs for our first working drafts.
<Geoff> http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-t
<Geoff> http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-mex
<Geoff> http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-en
<Geoff> http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-ev
<Geoff> http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-rt
<Geoff> This is based on our intension to deliver them in February.
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ws-ra/ws-t
<dug> to be clear this is for the 'latest version', right?
<Bob> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/09/02/xxx
Yes, latest version
<asir> why do we need so many path segments, curious?
Asir: Confusing dev area with pub area
<asir> me too
<marklittle> me too
Bob: Do we agree to Geoff original proposal?
... This will be ns uri for first WD
Li: I have concern about short string ... very close to one another ... I would like more discrimination
<Katy> looks good to me
Doug: This is only for first WD
Wu: Can we use 3 letters uniformly
Bob: Please type in short strings you suggest
<dug> tra/met/enu/eve/res
<Wu> ws-tra
<Wu> ws-evt
<Geoff> ws-evt?
<Geoff> ws-rst
Proposal for name space strings:
<Bob> ~/ws-tra
<Bob> ~/ws-mex
<Bob> ~/ws-enu
<Bob> ~/ws-evt
<Bob> ~/es-rst
Bob: Any objections to the above?
... Now we go to ns policy
No objection to Bob's proposal
<dug> yves: when does the "/TR/" part of the URL come into play?
<Yves> during official publication
Bob: We change ns every time we publish until CR and then after that only if there was a backwards breaking change
<dug> odd that I don't see a ns policy section in wsa-core
Bob: Geoff counterproposed ...
Discussion of what causes ns to change
<Bob> The working group intends to update the value of the Web Services XXXX namespace URI each time a new version of this document is published until such time that the document reaches Candidate Recommendation status. Once it has reached Candidate Recommendation status, the working group will not change the namespace arbitrarily with each subsequent revision of the corresponding XML Schema...
<Bob> ...documents but rather change only when a subsequent revision results in non-backwardly compatible changes from a previously published revision. Under this policy, the following are examples of backwards compatible changes that would not result in assignment of a new XML namespace URI: * Addition of new global element, attribute, complexType and simpleType definitions. * Addition of...
<Bob> ...new elements or attributes in locations covered by a previously specified wildcard. * Modifications to the pattern facet of a type definition for which the value-space of the previous definition remains valid or for which the value-space of the vast majority of instances would remain valid. * Modifications to the cardinality of elements (i.e. modifications to minOccurs or maxOccurs...
<Bob> ...attribute value of an element declaration) for which the value-space of possible instance documents conformant to the previous revision of the schema would still be valid with regards to the revised cardinality rule.
<asir> if you are fighting IRC to read the text please see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0013.html
<asir> this one is slightly more objective ...
<Geoff> +q
Ashok: Recommends shorter version with ptr to TAG finding
<Bob> The working group intends to update the value of the Web Services XXXX namespace URI each time a new version of this document is published until such time that the document reaches Candidate Recommendation status. Once it has reached Candidate Recommendation status, the working group intends to maintain the value of the Web Services XXXX namespace URI that was assigned in the Candidate...
Katy agrees
<Bob> ...Recommendation unless significant changes are made that impact the implementation of the specification.
<asir> what pointer are we talking about?
Geoff: Can we work in backwards incompatibility?
<dug> does adding a new optional thing to the schema require a new ns? that's backward compat but it is a significant change.
<asir> that is a very subjective statement
<asir> this means we should have an objective statement
<Bob> The working group intends to update the value of the Web Services XXXX namespace URI each time a new version of this document is published until such time that the document reaches Candidate Recommendation status. Once it has reached Candidate Recommendation status, the working group intends to maintain the value of the Web Services XXXX namespace URI that was assigned in the Candidate...
<Bob> ...Recommendation unless significant changes are made that impact the implementation or break post-CR implementationc of the specification. Reference http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html
<Bob> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri
<asir> I do not see any substantive content in the TAG ruling .. what are we trying to achieve?
<marklittle> fine with me
Bob: Any objection to above after fixing Reference editorially
<Katy> fine with me too
<Wu> impact implementation is fine to me
Geoff: We are OK
No objections
Resolution: Resolve issue-6519 with the above text for namespace strings and namespace policy
Bob: I will put into bugzilla
... with corrected wording
Bob: Any objection to accepting proposal in bugzilla?
Resolution: Issue-6459 resolved with proposal in bugzilla without objection
<dug> redline: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jan/att-0058/00-part
Bob: Any objection to accepting proposal by Gil?
No objection
resolution: Issue-6442 is resolved with proposal in Bugzilla Comment #1
<asir> what is the issue #
Issue-6426 Resource Access: Fix Delivery Definition http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
Geoff: Some wording changes needed in spec
... there is action item to provide wording
<dug> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/tracker/actions/2
<Yves> ACTION-2?
<trackbot> ACTION-2 -- Li Li to li to add some wording to clarify the use of NotifyTo (re: issue 6426) -- due 2009-02-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/tracker/actions/2
Bob: Li what is status of action? It is action 2 from last week
... Let's wait on this until the ai is complete
<dug> Latest: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jan/0043.html
Li: I have not posted changes yet.
Geoff: We have 2 concerns. 1) how transfer shd align with http
... not clear what that means
We shd engage TAG
scribe: and ask them to clarify
<marklittle> +1 to Dug
<asir> Do we have an official TAG communique or list of issues re alignment?
<asir> Yves?
<Yves> http://www.w3.org/2007/01/wos-papers/tag this one?
<Yves> http://www.w3.org/2007/01/wos-papers/tag#WSTransfer might be the proper link
<scribe> ACTION: Ashok to ask TAG for more specific comments on Resource Access [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/03-ws-ra-minutes.html#action03]
AOB?