WS-Resource Access Working Group

24 Feb 2009


See also: IRC log


Ashok Malhotra, Oracle Corp.
Asir Vedamuthu, Microsoft Corp.
Bob Freund, Hitachi, Ltd.
Doug Davis, IBM
Fred Maciel, Hitachi, Ltd.
Geoff Bullen, Microsoft Corp.
Gilbert Pilz, Oracle Corp.
Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle Corp.
Katy Warr, IBM
Li Li, Avaya Communications
Mark Little, Red Hat
Prasad Yendluri, Software AG
Sumeet Vij, Software AG
Tom Rutt, Fujitsu, Ltd.
Wu Chou, Avaya Communications
Bob Natale, MITRE Corp.
Ranga Reddy Makireddy, CA
Sreedhara Narayanaswamy, CA
Vikas Varma, Software AG
Yves Lafon, W3C/ERCIM
Tom Rutt, Fujitsu, Ltd.
Bob Freund, Hitachi, Ltd.
Li Li



approval of agenda

agenda approved

approval of minutes of 2009-02-17

minutes of 2009-02-17 approved w/o objection

WG Administrivia

discussion of f2f meeting

bob: discuss if to attend w3c meeting in California in November
... we need to decide by 10th march if we wish to attend

Action Items

action #14 - done

Review of FPWG

bob: review FPWD

Asir: link to issue list is missing in FPWD

bob: is it ok insert links to issue list ?

dug: no benefit to do so

asir: issues should be inserted

<asir> please see item 3 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0083.html

check item #3 in the above link

<Bob> proposal: In the status section of each spec, there should be a statement

<Bob> that explains the intent of this working draft. Perhaps something along

<Bob> the lines of: This working draft is meant only as a direct translation of

<Bob> the submitted spec into W3C format. There are many issues in the working

<Bob> group that will cause changes to this draft. Please see working group

<Bob> issue list.

kathy: is fpwd for w3c?

bob: Any objection to the proposal?

bob: The intro already points to the WG home page where all the stuff about issues list and how to open one is discussed, also the issue list does not pertain to only one spec, but is a mix. Some issus touch several specs

ashok: problem with wording

JeffM: object to proposal

roll call vote on proposal to insert link to issue list: y/n

IBM: no

Microsoft: yes

Hitachi: abstain

Avaya: abstain

Redhat: no

Software AG: abstain

Oracle: no

proposal fails 3-No 1-Yes 3-Abstain

bob: any other objection to publishing the fpwd?

asir: no

bob: any objection to publish 5 documents as fpwd?

bob:There being no objection, we will begin the process to publish the documents as FPWD

New Issues

<Bob> Issue 6587



<Bob> ACTION: Dug as owner of 6588 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-17 - As owner of 6588 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-03].


<Bob> ACTION: Dug as owner of 6594 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - As owner of 6594 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-03].


geoff: how to set filter for future?

<dug> isn't this part of the issue discussion?

gil: it's up to event source to decide

<Bob> ACTION: Gilbert as owner of 6595 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - As owner of 6595 [on Gilbert Pilz - due 2009-03-03].


<Bob> ACTION: Geoff as owner of 6603 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - As owner of 6603 [on Geoff Bullen - due 2009-03-03].


<Bob> acton: Dug as owner of 6604

<Bob> ACTION: Dug as owner of 6604 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-21 - As owner of 6604 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-03].

issues with proposals


<Bob> ACTION: Katy create proposal for 6587 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Create proposal for 6587 [on Katy Warr - due 2009-03-03].


geoff: Introduces his proposal

<Bob> Geof's proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0128.html

geoff: align with http, backward comp, ws-i bp compliance

options for compliant to bp: relax, use policy, or go to bp wg

Geoff described the summary of the proposal. The chair asked if there were any questions concerning the proposal - "People can read" was one comment made.

bob: any questions about the proposal?
... any objections to accept proposal?

asir: not sure the proposal is adequately explained

dug: why voting this one instead of mine?

bob: Does everyone understand the proposal?

katy: thought voting for both

<marklittle> +1 to Katy

gil: object to Microsoft proposal

<asir> where is the consensus?

bob: we have two proposals: geoff's and dug's. is dug's up to date?

<dug> here it is: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jan/0043.html

<Bob> that is the one in the bugzilla

geoff: voting on it is too soon, need more time to discuss. My proposal was only submitted yesterday and there were new comments on the mailing list about it as little as 10 minutes before the start of this call.

<jeffm> maybe we all think we understand the differences

bob: Are there more questions about either proposal?

wu: we need more time until next week

bob: We need to clear this since several other issues are blocked by this one.

gil: two camps: back-comp vs. bp compliant, we should vote now

<Katy> +1 to voting and moving on

<marklittle> +1

<asir> -1 to vote without more discussion

bob: Will more discussion help the decision?
... Will anyone change their mind with more discussion?

<gpilz> FWIW I've read Geoff's proposal - I understand it and I object to it

<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0128.html

<gpilz> I don't think any further discussion of it would change my opinion

bob: Since it seems that no one will change their decision, will call vote on IBM and Microsoft proposals

<dug> Jan43=IBM feb128=MSFT

Vote on resolution of Issue-6398; will vote on ibm vs. microsoft proposals

Oracle: ibm

Microsoft: ms

Hitachi: ibm

Avaya: abstain

Redhat: ibm

Software AG: abstain

IBM: ibm

bob: The IBM proposal prevails with 4 votes, Microsoft had one vote, there were 2 abstentions

bob: Will we expect any formal objections

<Geoff> Microsoft objects to proposal a from IBM

<marklittle> s/Micstosoft/Microsoft

<marklittle> +1 to Oracle. Has been pushed around for 3 weeks.

jeffm: enough time for people to make up their mind

<dug> actually more - since the f2f

bob: disentangling windows...


geoff: ok with the proposal, come up with suggestions

should we include wsa:To in the infoset?

wu: it is for infoset, not redefine wsa

<dug> +1 to Geoff

<dug> its very confusing - it looks like we're either restating what's already in WSA or worse possibly changing it

geoff: is wse wsa:to different from other usage of wsa:To?

wu: it can support different usage

geoff: more discussion offline

dug: like it because it's simple and gives xml authority
... geoff suggests more text in standard?

geoff: infoset is also normative

wu: we provide infoset and xml binding, implementations must conform to xml

<asir> agree - both normative does not answer the question

<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0106.html

gil: both being normative can create problem

wu: no requirement to produce xml from infoset, rather the mapping is defined by the standard
... infoset and xml should be consistent, in case conflict, xml wins

dug: normative != authoritive

<asir> what environment?

authoritative can overwrite the other

wu: they are free of inconsistency and xml is authoritative

geoff: cardinality is a potential consistency problem
... need to specify xml is authoritative
... infoset may cause inconsistency between different mappings

wu: infoset rules in that case

gpilz: infoset is interesting but is theoretic and makes standard larger

wu: infoset helps on compression, works with other standards

dug: ok with proposal, but object to adding more text to explain issues such as consistence

bob: is this proposal bad?

<dug> w/o the full description in the infoset section I think we'd reduce the chance of inconsistency

gil: not bad proposal but a bad idea

??: need more text to explain

dug: add one sentence is sufficient

<dug> could we perhaps have Wu redo the proposal with Geoff's edits and see what it looks like?

bob: general poll on if we should use infoset

<asir> +1 to dug

<dug> if he wants - I don't think there are a lot of changes but they might be important to help people decide.

wu: infoset extends applicability of wse in a non intrusive way, urge group to leverage infoset

jeffM: where are infoset used?

jeffm: practical use?

wu: compression uses infoset

bob: Straw poll to encourage Wu to refine his proposal or not?

Oracle: no

Hitachi: abstrain

IBM: yes if minimal work

Microsoft: yes

Avaya: yes

Software AG: yes

bob: with 4 votes in favor to one against Wu is encouraged to prepare a refined version of the infoset proposal

<Bob> ACTION: Wu to refine proposal for 6424 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Refine proposal for 6424 [on wu chou - due 2009-03-03].

bob: adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Dug as owner of 6588 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Dug as owner of 6594 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Dug as owner of 6604 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Geoff as owner of 6603 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Gilbert as owner of 6595 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: katy crate proposal for 6587 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Wu to refine proposal for 6424 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action07]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/03/11 10:27:44 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/??/Asir/
Succeeded: s/??/Asir/
Succeeded: s/something/link to issue list/
Succeeded: s/??/JeffM/
Succeeded: s/85/87/
FAILED: s/Micstosoft/Microsoft/
Succeeded: s/Micsrosoft/Microsoft/
Succeeded: s/authoritive/authoritative/
Succeeded: s/??/jeffM/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: li
Found Scribe: Li Li

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Ashok_Malhotra Asir Bob_Freund Don_Wright Mark_Little P32 SVij Sumeet TRutt1 Tom_Rutt Wu_Chou aaaa aabb acton ashok avaya bob dug fmaciel geoff gil gpilz hitachi ibm jeffM joined kathy katy marklittle microsoft ms oracle prasad proposal redhat trackbot ws-ra wu
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0122.html

Got date from IRC log name: 24 Feb 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html
People with action items: dug geoff gilbert katy wu

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]