See also: IRC log
approval of agenda
agenda approved
approval of minutes of 2009-02-17
minutes of 2009-02-17 approved w/o objection
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 #14 - done
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
<Bob> Issue 6587
http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6587
http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6588
<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].
http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6594
<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].
http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6595
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].
http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6603
<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].
http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6604
<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].
http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6587
<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].
http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6398
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...
http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6424
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
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]