See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 01 December 2009
<Bob> scribenick: asoldano
Agenda agreed
RESOLUTION: minutes of 17th Nov approved
<scribe> ACTION: DaveS to send notes for f2f meeting location to participants [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/01-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
Bob: new snapshots are up to be
reviewed, next meeting we'll check where we are with them
... are there any specific new issues requiring more info
... before accepting them all ?
<dug> can take those issue/questions to the mailing list
asir: aren't we changinh the way to proceed here?
asir requiring more info on 8167 8284
<asir> who is speaking?
<dug> Gil and he's a bit sick
<gpilz> getting up at 4:00 am for conference calls and flying around on freezing cold airplanes - wonder why I'm sick?
8284 is understandable and is accepted
8167 requires checking past minutes from the Hursley face to face
RESOLUTION: all the new issues except 8167 are accepted
Issue-8031 is related to Issue-7986
<Katy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Nov/0047.html
Bob: are you ok with the direction in Katy's email?
<Katy> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wsmex.html#Bootstrapping-Metadata-Retrieval
Asir: proposing some followup..
<scribe> ACTION: Katy to produce detail example for Issue-6463 before next call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/01-ws-ra-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-124 - Produce detail example for 6463 before next call [on Katy Warr - due 2009-12-08].
Issue-7728 discussion postponed
<dug> Latest proposal: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7911#c8
Yves ok with the latest proposal
<Ram> Ram's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Nov/0077.html
<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Nov/0078.html
Dug's proposal 8 is intended to address all operations
<Yves> I would note that comment #8 is no longer about dispatching
<asir> Hard to understand the value offered by these words
<DaveS> +1 to Dug's statement that the first sentence is simply setting the context.
<gpilz> The specification should be based on W3C Recommendations (SOAP Version 1.2, WS-Addressing 1.0, WSDL2.0, WS-Policy 1.5) and *aligned with ISO 29361:2008 (WS-I BP 1.1)*.
<asir> BP 1.1 is unaware of WS-Addressing
<dug> thank you Dave - its just setting the context - nicely put
<dug> However, the Working Group should also consider conformance to the forthcoming profiles WS-I is finalizing assuming they achieve WS-I "Final Material" status before the Working Group completes its deliverables.
<dug> This is part of BP 1.2/2.0
<ram> Proposal:
<asir> An implementation can examine [Action] property, the QName of the [Body] child, or a combination of both. An implementation that
<asir> examines just one of those values, but at multiple points during the entire processing of the message, are advised to ensure that the values that are used each time are consistent.
<dug> When determining the operation associated with a particular message, an implementation can examine the [Action] property, the QName of the [Body] child or a combination of both. An implementation...
<dug> yves?
<Yves> sounds ok
<dug> I didn't mention dispatching
<Yves> dispatching was in earlier text but not in text #8
<asir> yeah but the words are effectively about dispatching
<dug> I don't see the word dispatching
<Yves> text #8 is about action signature, so figuring out the action, no dispatching involved
<dug> When determining the operation associated with a particular message, an implementation can examine the [Action] property, the QName of the [Body] child or a combination of both.
<dug> it doesn't say why you're trying to figure out what the op is.
<gpilz> When determining the operation associated with a particular message, an implementation can examine the [Action] property, the QName of the [Body] child or a combination of both. An implementation that examines just one of those values, but at multiple points during the entire processing of the message, are advised to ensure that the values that are used each time are consistent.
<Yves> [repeating for the record: looks good to me]
Bob: Save suggests closing with no action, are there any objections to that?
RESOLUTION: Issue-7911 closed with no action
<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Nov/0079.html
Dug: the specs need clarification
... so close with no action is not that a good solution
<ram> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Nov/0073.html
<DaveS> +1 to msg 79
<dug> s/compliant implementation/compliant event source/ ....
<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Nov/0079.html + change 'compliant implementation' to "compliant event source...."
<asir> That is the pattern
<asir> The editorial team needs to transcribe the table into sentences
RESOLUTION: Issue-8201 solved with the text in message 79 + editorial issues above
<dug> its just the last line that's changed - I think
<asir> good one
RESOLUTION: Issue-8291 solved as proposed
<dug> I like diffs :-)
RESOLUTION: Issue-8203 resolved as proposed
Ram: more time required
that's all for today