IRC log of ws-desc on 2006-02-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:00:47 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-desc
16:00:47 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-irc
16:00:55 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-desc
16:01:14 [JacekK]
JacekK has joined #ws-desc
16:01:50 [Zakim]
+??P12
16:02:29 [Jonathan]
Jonathan has joined #ws-desc
16:03:21 [Zakim]
+Jonathan_Marsh
16:03:32 [Zakim]
+JacekK
16:04:08 [Zakim]
+Allen_Brookes
16:05:57 [Zakim]
+Hugo
16:08:29 [hugo]
Meeting: Web Services Description WG call
16:08:31 [hugo]
Scribe: Hugo
16:08:44 [hugo]
s/call/call - RDF mapping/
16:09:00 [hugo]
Chair: Jonathan
16:09:16 [hugo]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Feb/0000.html
16:09:23 [hugo]
Topic: Action items
16:09:57 [hugo]
ACTION: JacekK to detail (e.g. in a list) what constraints of the component model are not enforced by the WSDL ontology. [IN PROGRESS]
16:10:11 [hugo]
ACTION: JacekK to add an example to the RDF Mapping. [PENDING]
16:10:18 [Zakim]
+GlenD
16:10:23 [hugo]
Topic: Administrivia - Schedule
16:10:36 [hugo]
Jonathan: I wanted to talk about schedule
16:10:48 [hugo]
... when do we envision a LC WD?
16:11:02 [Gudge]
Gudge has left #ws-desc
16:11:22 [hugo]
Jacek: Bijan, when do you think that we'll have the mapping tables?
16:11:44 [hugo]
Bijan: they're pretty close to being ready
16:12:17 [hugo]
Jonathan: who's doing that?
16:12:28 [hugo]
Bijan: a graduate student at my school
16:12:40 [hugo]
Jonathan: we'll need to ack him
16:12:50 [hugo]
... maybe he'll be interested in joining the WG
16:13:15 [hugo]
... so what state will we be in at the end of the month?
16:13:30 [hugo]
Jacek: it can be mostly done by the TP
16:13:52 [hugo]
... shortly after the TP, we could aim for LC
16:14:44 [hugo]
Jonathan: a detailed review at the TP will be welcome
16:15:20 [hugo]
... and we can go to LC 1 month later
16:20:55 [hugo]
Hugo: I wanted to update the WG with rechartering thoughts
16:21:14 [hugo]
... we're going to propose to the AC not to keep the RDF mapping on the Rec track in the end
16:21:24 [hugo]
... the message will go out real soon now
16:21:39 [hugo]
Jonathan: but it doesn't change our goal to go to Rec
16:21:44 [hugo]
s/Rec/LC/
16:21:49 [hugo]
Hugo: that's correct
16:22:33 [hugo]
Jonathan: w.r.t. RDF task force, Tony will be chairing the meetings starting next meeting
16:22:44 [hugo]
Topic: Issue 283: Review of WSDL 2.0 - RDF Mapping: General comments
16:22:49 [hugo]
RRSAgent, make log public
16:23:38 [hugo]
[ Feeling in the WG that XSLT isn't the way forward ]
16:24:08 [hugo]
Jacek: David would like to see a mapping from XMLspec to the RDF
16:24:23 [hugo]
... I believe that mapping the component model is cleaner
16:24:33 [hugo]
Bijan: I agree that we should close with no action
16:25:04 [hugo]
Jonathan: XSLT seems like an interesting implementation
16:25:20 [hugo]
Jacek: I don't think that the pain is worth it
16:25:49 [pauld]
pauld has joined #ws-desc
16:26:04 [hugo]
Jonathan: also, the edge cases in XSLT are tricky
16:26:14 [hugo]
... was there more than using XSLT in this issue?
16:26:59 [hugo]
Jacek: I think that we can answer David and tell him that no, we will not have a normative XSLT
16:27:15 [hugo]
... but the rest of the issue should be open
16:28:32 [hugo]
Bijan: we should add some text saying that the mappings are not designed for validation of the component model
16:29:56 [Zakim]
+Paul_Downey
16:31:12 [hugo]
RESOLUTION: no to a definitive list of unenforced constraints, and yes to a general statement saying that there may be unenforced constraints with a couple of examples
16:31:31 [hugo]
RESOLUTION: no to a normative XSLT
16:32:26 [hugo]
s/no to a definitive/Issue 283: no to a definitive/
16:32:38 [hugo]
s/no to a normative/Issue 283: no to a normative/
16:33:16 [hugo]
ACTION: Jacek to implement resolution for issue 283 (above)
16:33:25 [hugo]
RESOLUTION: issue 283 is closed
16:33:41 [hugo]
this makes Jacek's first action item unneeded
16:33:51 [hugo]
Topic: Issue 284: Review of WSDL 2.0 - RDF Mapping: Comments by Section
16:34:44 [hugo]
Jacek: comment about "Section 1. Introduction"
16:34:56 [hugo]
... I agree it would be nice, but I'm not sure where to do it
16:35:17 [hugo]
... I declined to do that
16:35:33 [hugo]
... "Section 3. Differences from the WSDL Component Model"
16:35:52 [hugo]
[missed that]
16:36:01 [hugo]
... "Section 3.1 Component naming"
16:36:43 [hugo]
... I think that this issue is against the component designators, not the RDF mapping
16:36:57 [hugo]
... "Appendix A: the owl ontology source"
16:37:09 [hugo]
... this is still open in the context of another issue
16:37:25 [hugo]
... I believe that we can close this issue with the editorial changes made
16:37:42 [hugo]
... the last part is covered by issue 286
16:38:07 [hugo]
Jonathan: so do you want to close it now or leave it open?
16:38:15 [hugo]
Jacek: I think that it's fine closing it
16:39:31 [hugo]
Bijan: I agree that we should close the issue
16:40:03 [hugo]
RESOLUTION: issue 284 closed with editorial changes
16:40:38 [hugo]
ACTION: Jonathan to close issue 285 in the issues list
16:40:39 [Jonathan]
ACTION: Marsh to change status of 285
16:40:49 [hugo]
s/ACTION: Marsh to change status of 285//
16:40:56 [hugo]
ACTION- 5
16:41:10 [hugo]
Topic: Issue 286: Reusing Part-Whole ontology?
16:41:51 [hugo]
Jacek: the annotations WG will come up with an ontology a whole and a part
16:42:13 [hugo]
Bijan: I'm not sure that I agree that it's exactly the same
16:42:45 [hugo]
... and I'm a little nervous on taking a dependency here
16:43:49 [hugo]
... I think that it would be better to keep it more closely tied to our spec
16:44:40 [hugo]
Jacek: if we keep our ontology, if we want to use their whole-part ontology, then we'll have a problem because it will be overloaded
16:44:59 [hugo]
... from service to interface and from @@@ to @@@
16:45:28 [hugo]
Bijan: if they're different, then we should introduce a new relationship
16:46:10 [hugo]
Jacek: in any case, we should not use the part-whole ontology just yet
16:46:16 [hugo]
Bijan: I agree
16:46:34 [hugo]
RESOLUTION: Issue 286 closed; not doing it yet
16:46:49 [hugo]
Topic: Issue 287: Modularization of the ontology?
16:46:59 [hugo]
Jacek: I haven't had time to look into that yet
16:47:48 [hugo]
... we could separate the bindings into separate modules
16:47:57 [hugo]
... but I'm not sure how many modules would make sense
16:48:20 [hugo]
Bijan: I don't think that it's really worth it
16:48:28 [hugo]
... and I don't think that it's appropriate
16:48:44 [hugo]
... trying to split along namespaces doesn't make sense
16:49:11 [hugo]
... if you want to do some separation, I can run it against our analysis tool and see what happens
16:51:19 [hugo]
ACTION: Bijan to run the partitioning analysis on ontology
16:51:29 [hugo]
Topic: Issue 288: WSDL RDF mapping issue: coordination with SOAP WG
16:51:55 [hugo]
Jacek: we need a URI to point to the idea of SOAP MEP
16:52:13 [JacekK]
JacekK has joined #ws-desc
16:52:26 [hugo]
... we asked them to bless our URI, but they declined because of a TAG recommendation
16:52:34 [hugo]
... they promised to give us a URI
16:52:56 [hugo]
Jonathan: so we should leave this one open until we get the URI from them then
16:53:19 [hugo]
scribeOptions: -final
16:53:24 [hugo]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:53:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html hugo
16:53:37 [Zakim]
-Amelia_Lewis
16:53:39 [Zakim]
-Jonathan_Marsh
16:53:40 [Zakim]
-Paul_Downey
16:53:43 [Zakim]
-GlenD
16:53:44 [Zakim]
-Bijan_Parsia
16:53:46 [Zakim]
-Allen_Brookes
16:53:48 [Zakim]
-JacekK
16:53:48 [Zakim]
-TonyR
16:53:57 [hugo]
Jonathan, Tony, the minutes are at http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html
16:54:10 [hugo]
RRSAgent, please excuse us
16:54:10 [RRSAgent]
I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-actions.rdf :
16:54:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JacekK to detail (e.g. in a list) what constraints of the component model are not enforced by the WSDL ontology. [IN PROGRESS] [1]
16:54:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-irc#T16-09-57
16:54:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: JacekK to add an example to the RDF Mapping. [PENDING] [2]
16:54:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-irc#T16-10-11
16:54:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jacek to implement resolution for issue 283 (above) [3]
16:54:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-irc#T16-33-16
16:54:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jonathan to close issue 285 in the issues list [4]
16:54:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-irc#T16-40-38
16:54:10 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Bijan to run the partitioning analysis on ontology [6]
16:54:10 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-irc#T16-51-19
16:54:13 [hugo]
Zakim, please excuse us
16:54:13 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were Bijan_Parsia, Amelia_Lewis, TonyR, Jonathan_Marsh, JacekK, Allen_Brookes, Hugo, GlenD, Paul_Downey
16:54:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-desc
16:54:31 [alewis]
alewis has left #ws-desc