Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference

18 Aug 2009


See also: IRC log


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


<trackbot> Date: 18 August 2009

<Bob> zakim aacc is Sreed

<fmaciel> do you see that?

<Bob> scribe: Paul Nolan

<Bob> scribenick: PaulN

Agenda is accepted

RESOLUTION: All three sets of minutes from the August F2F are accepted

Bob: need chair for 8th Sept - Yves?

<dug> you skipped a few topics

Bob: Yves will let group know if he can not make it.

Yves: Partial put will be done by end August

Bob: 6724 Doug will complete 28th August

Bob has reviewed the expected completion dates of outstanding issues

Hursley Face to Face

Paul will post details for travel

July Snapshot

<dug> I've fixed ALL of the typos that Ram noticed.

Ram: more time requested for our review of MEX and RT

initial draft of WS-Fragment spec

<dug> do people prefer WS-Fragment or WS-Fragments ?

<Yves> WS-Fragment

<Bob> +1 Yves

<Wu> +1

Bob: "WS-Fragment" will be used since there is no objection

Doug: can people please review

Bob: should we accept the spec and raise issues for open questions?
... next week we will review this proposed draft and see if we can use it as a starting point

new issues

Bob: no objections to opening new issue 7235

<dug> Unless otherwise noted, all URIs are absolute URIs and URI comparison MUST be

<dug> performed according to [RFC 3986] section 6.2.1.

Doug: new issue 7270. Specs consistency issue

Bob: new issue accepted


<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/0033.html

Bob: we need to resolve an important question before going too far

Ashok: reviewed two points he has raised

Wu: should only EP related policies will be attached inside the EPR

Ashok: only EPR related policies should be attached in the proposed way

Wu: to clarify. we will define a namespace?
... one namespace fo all specs?

<dug> +1 one NS per spec

<Yves> +1

<gpilz> +1

<Wu> +1 Bob

Bob: should we do one namespace per spec?
... do we more or less agree on the proposed direction?

<Wu> Bob's point as I understand (agree) is to have one policy namespace per spec for ease maintenance.

<Ashok> I think that would be fine

Bob: are we agreed on direction?

RESOLUTION: Generlly agreed with Ashok's points in the bugzilla and one policy namespace per spec


<dug> In cases where it is either desirable or necessary for the receiver of a request that has been extended to indicate that it has recognized and accepted the semantics associated with that extension, implementers are encouraged to add a corresponding extension to the response message.

<dug> (that's Gil's text)

<dug> Ram's text: In cases where it is either desirable or necessary for the receiver of a request that has been extended to indicate that it has recognized and accepted the semantics associated with that extension, it is recommended that the receiver add a corresponding extension to the response message. The definition of an extension should clearly specify how the extension that appears in the...

<dug> ...response correlates with that in the corresponding request.

Gpilz: reviewed proposal

Doug: is this issue specific to just the one spec?

Gpilz: All specs affected

no objections to proposal

RESOLUTION: Ram's amendments to Gil's proposal accepted for the resolution of Issue-7206


RESOLUTION: Extend the resolution of 7206 to all WS-RA specs


<dug> +1 to cwna

<gpilz> +1 to cwna

Gpilz: complexity is dealt with by explicity stating cobinations of extensions that are supported.

Wu: how do we advertise these extensions?

Gpilz: each new extension defines itself

Wu: should we use Policy?
... should we use WSDL to advertise?

Bob: notes that WS-Policy should be used to determine compatible extensions

RESOLUTION: Resolve Issue-7204 by closing with no action


<Ram> -Issue-7160 Eventing:check 2119 terms http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7160 -Davis

<Bob> Ram requests one more week to review


RESOLUTION: Resolve Issue-7191 as proposed


RESOLUTION: Resolve Issue-7193 as proposed


RESOLUTION: Resolve Issue-7195 as proposed


RESOLUTION: Resolve Issue-7196 as proposed


RESOLUTION: Resolve Issue-7197 as proposed

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/08/26 11:25:32 $