See also: IRC log
<dug> get a room
<gpilz> Zakim: too much information
<dug> wow - can zakim call everyone?
<Bob> scribe: Katy Warr
<dug> you can't run from the scribemaster forever
<asir> indeed Bob is tracking the number of hours :-)
<gpilz> nothing is certain but death, taxes, and scribing
No objections to agenda
No objections to accepting minutes of feb 10th
<dug> only 4 people will be there so far
<dug> s/4/5/ sorry
<scribe> Chair: Mark Little has created action item list linked to Bugzilla
Bob: steping through the action items in tracker
Ashok: Tag issue may be better discussed at F2F
<scribe> Chair: That is our F2F?
<scribe> Chair: Agreed to discuss at our F2f
<scribe> Chair: Action 8 : 6543
Yves: Will complete in 2 weeks
<scribe> Chair: Action 9: 6548
Geoff: Not completed 48-52,
... will do proposals in next 2 weeks
<dug> +1 to Gil
<scribe> Chair: Action 15 Issue 6401
Gil: Not intending to take up action of output ops with BP
Wu: Would like to see this being taken to BP
<scribe> Chair: Will you take this to BP?
Wu: I am not a member of BP
<scribe> Chair: If the issue is going to get to BP, someone should raise it. don't need to be a member of BP
Dug: think we should close this as we have other action items 1. how do we advrt events 2. how bp compliant
<scribe> Chair: will return next week to discuss whether/not to close this
<scribe> Chair: any further review comments that have not be incorporated into the documents
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: and is everyone happy in taking to FPWG draft
Asir: There are some questions still open
<scribe> ACTION: Yves to prepare FPWD boiler plate [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/17-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-16 - Prepare FPWD boiler plate [on Yves Lafon - due 2009-02-24].
<dug> #6 too I think
<scribe> Chair: This will resolve point 3
Geoff: and 6
<Zakim> asir, you wanted to ask a question
Geoff: All other issues are addressed
<scribe> chair: we will take a look at boiler plate and consider fine tuning for publication next week
<scribe> Chair: noticing that we have resolved 6391 but awaiting text for closure
Geoff: Only open issue for resolving refences is addressing only
<dug> RM is an example
<dug> Policy too I think
Geoff: but others need to work through for new standards
<asir> These are good ticklers for the WG!
Geoff: so I wanted a marker to remind us to go through all the other specs (more general issue)
<scribe> Chair: To save time any objection to 68-72 as new issues to address this?
RESOLUTION: No objections to 6568-72 to being opened as new issues
Geoff: Issue 6575
No Objections to opening 6575 and assigning to Geoff
RESOLUTION: 6575 opened
Geoff: Issue 6576
RESOLUTION: 6576 Opened
Geoff: Issue 6577
<dug> asir: makes sense to me
<dug> clearly an oversight
RESOLUTION: 6577 Opened
<asir> But WG members are required to only spend 20% of their time ...
Geoff: Issue 6578
<dug> just the slackers
<asir> we can only spend the time we have, nothing more
RESOLUTION: 6578 Opened
<dug> there are two new issues since the agenda was posted: 6587 and 6588
Geoff: Issue 6579
RESOLUTION: 6579 Opened
<scribe> Chair: putting new issues 6587 and 6588 on next week's agenda
Geoff: Looking at PDF created
... section 3.1 I would like to take an example
<dug> got a URL to the doc?
Geoff: in order to clarify my understanding
pls could someone post URL to doc?
<Bob> looking ...
Geoff: section 3.1 says 0 or 1 WS-A EPRS
<dug> isn't the mapping in section 3.2?
Geoff: what does the this map to
in the wsdl section 3.2
... First part of section 3.2 has endto tag. How does section 3.1 endto endpoint map to section 3.2 with this tag?
... Endto tag could have nothing inside it
<dug> I'm so lost as to what the confusion is about. [endto endpoint] maps to wse:EndTo
Wu: What is in the endto is endpoint which is of the Endpoint type
<asir> this sounds like a new formal representation on top of xml syntax ... need to better understand Doug
<asir> this is also different from the approach took by XML Protocol and WS-A WGs
Geoff: Concerned about
inconsistency between infoset and XML
... The potential could be high
<dug> IMO if there is an inconsistency then the XML should win
Geoff: not that we have to change
in 2 spots
... and check that they retain consistant
<asir> the XML Query WG had an automated tool to ensure that both the XML and formal rep stayed in sync
<asir> so did WSDL WG as well, they had a Z machine running to validate the contents
Geoff: people are more familiar with XML representation
Wu: xml is nomartively
... infoset specifies the semantics of the elements
... we normatively reference the infoset when used in different standards
Geoff: Is it not possible that the 2 normative references could get out of sync?
Wu: The XML is seen as the normative reference for the specification
Geoff: I would like to see something to say specifically that the XML is the norm reference
Gil: Possible that infoset and
XML out of sync
... isn't that a bug in our spec that we'd need to fix?
Geoff: Next point is
... if we only test the XML, are we really testing the infoset
Gil: Infoset is abstract property
Geoff: But we are not testing correctness of infoset
Gil: We can only test interop on
things that come to the wire - i.e. XML
... Don't need to test other protocols which infoset mapping can map to
... Next issue: conformance
... what do we do to claim conformance if another protocol (e.g. carrier pigeon) maps to this infoset
Wu: Must map to concrete cases
<asir2> will the abstract representation be normative or non-normative?
Wu: and we added paragraph to clarify that you would have to define conformance for each case mapping to the infoset
<scribe> Chair: Are there any objections to accepting this proposal?
Geoff: I require another week to consider
Asir: Is the WG considering
applying such changes to all the specs or just to
... this is large changes that need ot be carefully considered/reviewed
<scribe> Chair: Are you objecting to this idea due to the number of changes?
Asir: Not necessarily, I'd like to understand whether current thinking is one spec or all
<scribe> Chair: Wu?
Wu: I think this proposal will
add value in terms of making the specs more applicable
... in particular eventing allows binding to different specs
<Geoff> +1 on that
Dug: I think we should retain
consistency across specs - all or nothing
... actually, seeing what Wu has done with eventing, it's not a scarey as I expected
<scribe> Chair: Anyone hate the idea of this across all specs?
Asir: would like to think about it more
Geoff: agrees with Doug - all in or nothing
<scribe> Chair: Everyone agree in consitency?
No objections - all agree
<scribe> Chair: will revisit this issue next week
Li: This has gone back an forth
on public list
... made some changes to the delivery element and schema
... had many discussions
<scribe> Chair: Any objections to proposal linked to link contained in comment 6?
RESOLUTION: No objections to Resolving Issue-6426 with the contents of Comment #6
<dug> 6404 might be ok
Li: Proposal that hasn't been integrated
Li: yet that we could use element rather than attribute
Gil: really haven't agreed
whether wrapped events should be covered
... however, I am happy to agree on this so long as we separate the concept of wrapped
Geoff: agreed: something like wrapped could be in a format section
Doug: Wu and I perhaps go back and look at element vs attribute discussions
Geoff: please include me in that
<dug> 6431 will not be quick
Li: Acked to add pause and resume
... tried to retain current ws-eventing style
... key issue was how many msgs to maintain when pausing
... so we used an attribute in order to indicate how many messages you need to maintain
Li: quite long because we tried to be very complete wrt examples
Doug: when retaining messages, is it expected that the event source will retain over system restart?
Doug: i.e. is there gaurantee that messages wont be lost
Li: I would think that this was
out of the scope of the eventing spec
... the gaurantee would be dependent on the implementation
Doug: We should put words to clarify this
Geoff: I am concerned about the complexity that this is added to the specification
Gil: I would like more time to
think about this
... Need to ensure that proposal says something about pause and expiration time
... in particular, would expect expiration to cause msgs saved during pause to be lost
... also Doug's point is not specific to this issue
Doug: Overall I agree
<dug> Wu - do you have a URL to what you just referenced?
<asir2> what is 206?
<gpilz> a real URL would be appreciated
<gpilz> or at least enough to perform a decent search
<dug> I tihnk
Wu: See feature for (link) about
re: roadmap 206 web paper
... we need to standardise on this as it's part of roadmap and folk are already wanting to implement
<scribe> Chair: Are you Wu and Li clear on what's required to take this proposal to list?
Li and Wu to refine
RESOLUTION: Resolve Issue-6472 with Katy's suggestion 1 contained in bugzilla without objection