See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Hugo
http://www.w3.org/2005/02/15-ws-cg-minutes.html approved
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-cg/2005Mar/0004.html have been sent to the mailing list
Jonathan: Addressing and
Description are meeting 19-22 in the Bay area
... and we're meeting from May 30 to June 3 in
Berlin
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to add Berlin meeting to calendar [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/15-ws-cg-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to (possibly) work on an updated glossary and bring it for review [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/15-ws-cg-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Hugo to book table for lunch on Wednesday 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/15-ws-cg-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Hugo to contact Eric Miller about WSCG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/15-ws-cg-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to send email about XML 1.1 support and then dropping in WSDL 2.0 [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/15-ws-cg-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Hugo will circulate to the CG Glen Daniels summary email about this issue from the task force employed to look at it [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/15-ws-cg-minutes.html#action06]
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Hugo will cirulate to the CG David Orchards slides on this issue as they may contain useful context and usecase information [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/15-ws-cg-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Steve will put this on the agenda for the 15th March in order to come to an agreed solution to resolve the issue by the CG. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/15-ws-cg-minutes.html#action08]
<scribe> ACTION: [DONE] Martin Chapman will circulate the necessary material to the WS-CHOR WG to ensure they have the chance to input to this issue. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/15-ws-cg-minutes.html#action09]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-cg/2005Mar/0003.html
Steve: do we want to wait for Mark?
Jonathan: the Async TF is still
going on
... it didn't meet last week but is supposed to work
tomorrow
... the invitation to participate has been extended to the XMLP
WG
Steve: I wanted to discuss the division of the work
Jonathan: I'm not sure that we're
ready
... we still have some fuzziness in the scenarios
Mike: I invited Mark to make an
official invitation to the WG w.r.t. the taskforce
... XMLP is meeting tomorrow, and we will discuss that in the
call
Jonathan: it's not clear that the Addressing Group has made any formal request
Mike: yes, this has been entirely informal
Mark: I agree with Jonathan that
need to investigate a little more
... I will have informal discussions with XMLP to see how much
interest we have
<SRT> The have been discussion about using schema to deal with interop problems. W3C is thinking of organisting a workshop in which experiences can be exchanged, identify interop problems and to imporve the shcmea test suite (and one other item I didn;t manage to get)
<SRT> ah: to demonstrate their implementations
Jonathan: how are people going to demonstrate interop?
Michael: we haven't decided yet
Jonathan: what if a user was showing how the vendors don't interoperate
Michael: we don't want to put the vendors on the spot, and yet the users will want to do so
Jonathan: this seems to be coming
from the best practice group from WS-I
... I don't think that it's going anywhere
... an example: how to validate anyURI? you can do it at
several levels
... Schema is a huge space
... I don't know why the Schema Group hasn't been the recipient
of more more errata reports
... it's what happened in XML Core, but I'm not sure why this
hasn't worked with Schema
Michael will talk to people offline
Michael: any conflicts with 21-22 June?
<inserted> Mark: XML Prague is the next week-end, but no direct conflict
-- Choreography
Martin: we are processing our LC
issues
... we have processed all our P1's and P2's issues at the
F2F
... we are looking into the P3 ones now
... we're still targetting the end of May for CR
Steve: we have an issue: Issue:
Xpath2.0 and support for three valued logic as well as
existential qualifiers?
... who should we punt this to?
... a work unit has a boolean expressing that we want to query
with XPath; it could be true, false, or absent (null)
... who do we need to speak to to find out whether XPath 2.0
will support that?
Michael: there have been
discussions around this
... but I don't the answer
... however, I'm a good point of contact
<scribe> ACTION: Martin to contact Michael about issue about XPath 2.0 and support for three valued logic [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/15-ws-cg-minutes.html#action10]
-- Description
Jonathan: we had a fairly
productive F2F
... we still have about 55 issues to go through
... we have tackled the biggest ones
-- XMLP
Mike: we are trying to finish the
PER for SOAP 1.2
... we now are investigating printing issues
-- Addressing
Mark: we're down to 1 issue to go
to LC with Core and the SOAP binding
... we seem to be going in circles about it
... we should able to close it next week
... I'll be contacting chairs about reviewing the document
-- XML
Michael: we've discussed the workshop already
Mark: it would be nice to know
when groups would be able to do a review
... suppose that we could be going to LC next week
... would groups be able to give us comments by April 19?
Jonathan: WSDWG should have no problem
Mike: should we choose reviewers who are in the Addressing WG or others?
Mark: I've seen it happen both ways
Jonathan: it all depends on what candidates you get
Steve: Choreography will be
interested in reviewing them
... we should be able to review the documents fairly
rapidly
... I don't see any major issue with April 19
Mike: XMLP shoudl be fine too
Mark: that will give us a nice segue into our face-to-face
29 March