See also: IRC log
<Jeffrey> I can only join irc this week again, I am sorry
<JacekK> scribe: LH
<JacekK> scribenick: laurentH
<scribe> agenda: no corrections
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
<JacekK> ACTION: BNS, Rama to start the Examples document [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060509#action01]
<JacekK> examples document
<JacekK> ACTION: Amit to send their Master's Theses usecases [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060509#action02]
amit has a new web page for the example
<Amit> here are more use cases: http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/meteor-s/Use-Cases/
<Amit> sorry--correction on use pages: more specific page is http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/meteor-s/Use-Cases/index.php?page=2
<JacekK> ACTION: JacekK, editors to amend the issues list and the spec with an editor todo list (resolution implemented flag) [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060509#action03]
JacekK: added a color tag for resolved issues
joel: todo list kept in the spec
JacekK to be non available next two meetings
<Amit> I will be available next week, but I will also be at Edingurg week after
JacekK will contact Carine to chair the next meeting (May 16)
Eric will chair the meeting after that (May 23)
Eric asks: will there be enough attendance in the WWW2006 week?
JacekK: seems that yes
Rama: doesn't have the permission to modify the document
JacekK: try to read the examples document in the week and discuss later
Rama: needs more work, for instance composition, in line of what was done for discovery
<JacekK> ACTION: editors of the examples doc to add a todo about updating any concrete examples in line with SAWSDL syntax [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060509#action04]
JacekK: would be nice to publish both documents at the same time.
JacekK: our schema overrides the namespace document in the web site. Is this a problem?
EricP: we have two uris for thesame thing
EricP: jacekK proposes that the .html overrides the .xsd?
<JacekK> ACTION: EricP to make the HTML to override the schema at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/sawsdl [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060509#action05]
JacekK: which version of wsdl are we dependent upon?
... if any, then WSDL 2.0
... believe we can make our schema independent of any wsdl version
... comment 3 : we don't need categories to be required
Rama: so it is an extension ?
JacekK: shoudn't be marked as required
Amit: you may give this as an option
Holger: agree, concerned with where it can be placed?
JacekK: extension can be placed anywhere in wsdl document
... if we allow on the category element any attribute outside our namespace, we can have the wsdl:required attribute on it
Rama: do we have an example - and can you explain the change?
JacekK: this just concerning our schema
Rama: the current state does not allow for general extensibility: a user cannot provide his category having more descriptors than currently
... would be good for the users to have the possibility to adapt their concept of a category
JacekK: use the "any" attribute for a wildcard for categories
RESOLUTION: the wsdl category type does not extend wsdl ExtensibilityElement, will allow attribute extensibility
Questions about the extensibility of wsdl 1.1 port types
JacekK to open a new issue on this
<Amit> itis in the document
Rama: used the documentation element
<Amit> This element serves as the head of a substitution group
<Amit> for extensibility elements that wish to appear as children of wsdl:portType
Laurent: possibility of having duplicate files with distinct details
<Amit> onm postponing #7
JacekK: this issue is out of scope and shoudt be postponed
RESOLUTION: issue #4 to be postponed until CR of sawsdl
John: difference between 1 and 3?
JacekK: there also exists option 0, by non documenting the possibility 1
Rama: just comment on the possibility, but no more
Holger: the container element could be similar to what people are used of using sdl types
<Amit> how large can the models be --- readability issues ?
<Amit> would say RDF fragment in WSDL files affect readability?
Joel: option 1 cannot allow techniques to know what language the model is in
<holger> Amit, I would see it similar to types, some times they are only a view included, sometimes it is external schema
Joel: parsing is needed with option 1
JacekK: agree with Rama that the namespace would tell us the type of the model
EricP: one dsipatch mecanism must be used to decide how to process something
... mechanism must be different when embedded
JacekK: anybody using mediatype?
... if you just require an rdf document, you still don't know if it's OWL or WSML/RDF.
Joel: if there is registered mediatype for OWL in RDF, it can solve the problem
Rama: why not just support that all these options are usable?
Joel: how much useful this is? Hard to imagine people doing such embeding.
<JacekK> option 1: <wsdl:operation sawsdl:modelReference="#foo" .../>
<JacekK> option 3: <wsdl:operation ...> <sawsdl:model> <wsml:wsml> WSML model </wsml:wsml> </sawsdl:model> </wsdl:operation>
Joel: I wouldn't go too far in supporting this.
JacekK: finally the best choice may be one
RESOLUTION: close Issue 2 an let editors document option 1
<holger> I am fine but please leave - adding a mechanism like sawsdl:modelLocation  open
JacekK: end of the meeting.