Semantic Annotations for WSDL WG teleconference

<ericP> hi all. can't attend, but ping me or call +1.617.258.xxxx if you need me for anything brief

<scribe> Scribe: Carine

<scribe> scribenick: caribou

Approval of minutes

<JacekK> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070313

JK: no objections, minutes approved

Action Items

<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/20070320#action01]

<JacekK> ACTION: JacekK to ping Marin Dimitrov about SAWSDL parser in WSMO Studio [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070320#action02]

Administrivia

JK: next week call back at normal time for everyone

(noon EST)

JK: I received links from Ajith, paper reference from Carlos, will put them on the website
... send links about other tools

Implementation status

JK: I saw no change since last week
... any news?

Amit: we will release a new version of sawsdl4j
... and something new for Woden before the end of the month
... Karthik will be the primary contact person

JF: update by the end of the month too for our tool

JK: any problems encountered?

JF: what's the timeline for the implementation phase?

JK: so far we have no test report, only a few links. As soon as we get real data we will estimate a schedule

JF: when the implementation report, we can go to proposed Rec ?

JK: if we don't receive other issues, yes
... right now we are only waiting for the implementation report

Claudio: It took me some time to understand the use cases for the WG, sent to Jacek an email about it

JK: I have not checked your email yet, I'll get back to you

Future of the WG

JF: are the topics listed in the summary email you sent sufficiently detailed to go forward?
... do we need concrete proposals?
... e.g. for preconditions and effects

JK: yes, if we give a more detailed proposal, I expect it will speed up the process

JF: like an input document?

JK: yes, it's certainly better to have a starting document
... as opposed to just saying do something between hooks and full logic framework
... same for other points of the list

Amit: we try to do a registry and we need P&E, is a document saying this useful?

JK: stating the need is one point, a document with a starting point for a solution is better
... priority is on the implementation report so far
... anybody who cares about the points listed in the summary email, do something about it
... ADJOURNED