See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: Amit
Observers: Karthik Gomadam, Ajith Ranabahu
minutes for the last telecon approved
<JacekK> ACTION: Eric to upgrade the SPDL page for SAWSDL readers and then work things out with the Usage Guide [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action01]
Eric still working on his action item
<JacekK> ACTION: EricP to create a SAWSDL-independent namespace for attrExtensions [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action02]
<JacekK> ACTION: Joel to review Last Call of WS-Policy specs (by Jan 9) [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action03]
Karthik: policy could enrich semantics of annotation
Joel: interpretation can be independedent
ModelReference pointing to policy description-- does it enhance?
Ajith: policy assertions may have effect on semantics of service
Laurent: can we have use case where policies modify semantics?
John: policy adds nonfunctional requirements, keeping separate would be good
Jacek: without concrete use case, defer the discussion
Joel: orthogonal descriotion, interpret independetly?
Karthik: would not be good to say policy does not provide formal semantics
Jacek: let us get concrete use case, 12th is target
... if we do not add "Policy description should not affect semantics", would there be a problem in the future?
Laurent: until we have concrete story, keep "should not"
<Zakim> laurenth, you wanted to wonder that behavioral descriptions are semantics, not policies
<laurenth> we definitely need a use case
Amit: all types of semantics (data, fundational, Qos/non-functional, execution) need to be captured
Jacek: "should not" allows it to be broken if necessary
Amit: effect is on SAWSDL, not on WS-policy
Jacek: Joel to send comment to Policy
RESOLUTION: Joel to send his comments, policy modification of semantic annotations is on agenda for future, if we get use cases
<JacekK> ACTION: Joel to send his comments (clarified) to WS-Policy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action04]
Jacek: skip agenda item because we have no input yet
Jacek: also skip, same reason
<JacekK> ACTION: Jacek to start an implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action05]
Amit: we have completed implementation of SAWSDL4J for WSDL1.1
Ajith: what about implementation for WSDL2.0?
Jacek: we will need a WSDL2.0 implementation as we depend on that W3C Rec (to be)
... should we be faster than WSDL2.0, we cannot be more than one step ahead of it in the process