See also: IRC log
<JacekK> last minutes: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070220
Jacekk: approval of mintues requested
minutes got approved
<scribe> 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/20070227#action01]
Jacekk: please send implementations by email, not only chat
... Expecting TAG's response to question about moving WSDL operation safety to SAWSDL
... no preferences from tag on where to specify safety annotation
... now it is up to WSDL group telco next thursday
... will inform WG about news on this
jacekk: suggests to follow WSDL namespace i.e. /ns/sawsdl
joel: is it now w3c approach to not include birthday year anymore?
jacekk: approach is fairly new... so don't really know
... so the proposal remains to adopt when going to next stage (proposed rec)
joel: should we change draft before?
... testcases stay the same for now
RESOLUTION: we will change our namespace to follow the form of WSDL 2.0 namespace
jacekk: going to add wsdl 1.1 test cases
... anything on the woden front?
ajith: probably have somethin in 1.5 week
... wsdl 1.1 parser is about ready, but need some time for documentation etc.
jacekk: deri part will not be as soon but try not to break schedule
... any news from IBM?
joel: not sure when it is sheduled but will do it, will report again next week
jacekk: summarizes result of last telco
... laurent suggests to drop propagation
joel: wsdl does not make any statement about the issue and since we have a counter example it seems reasonable to let them not propogate (for the interfaces)
jacekk: does anybody object this proposal?
Amit: suggest to wait one more meeting
jacekk: do you expect new insights?
Amit: not sure but just a chance.
jacekk: ok close it for today
... for the moment it seems that the group leans towards dropping propagation of model references between interfaces
... what about the schemas?
... model reference and schema mapping should the propagation be in the component model?
tomasV: how is it in WSDL?
jacekk: it is differently done
... sometimes they do sometimes not
... they only propagate defaults nothing else
joel: choice is not changing behaviour, but just the way parsers will be implemented.
WG tends to propagate schema annotation
jacekk: proposal should be to alter spec text to include component model propagation
RESOLUTION: on schema components, we will propagate our annotations in the component model
jacekk: this does not close CR issue 6 yet, waiting for the part about interfaces
amit: suggests to include precondition/effects
jacekk: you mean a hook or a concrete representation?
amit: probably hooks, not sure, how would you do this, then?
jacekk: suggest to take this to email discussion and bring up a more concrete proposal
<john_ajith_jon> we have thought of a way to do this through ws-policy
<john_ajith_jon> but we could also be using model references
jacekk: brings up the idea of repeating a workshop as the one 2 years ago in IBK
old workshop info: http://www.w3.org/2005/01/ws-swsf-cfp.html
<carlos> +1 to workshop
amit: could also be a sawsdl meeting with more open agenda?
caribou: if the group could come up with future steps would be more efficient then a (lengthy) workshop
... it is a bit about the WG which should voice their opinion
... the WG basically has the first right to suggest something
jacekk: takes suggestion about a workshop a bit back
... summarizes: preconds/effect anything else?
tomasV: extend also to some more use cases / ontologies?
... another thing to consider behavioural semantics?
jacekk: OK, anything and everything is encouraged to be posted
telco ends :)