See also: IRC log
Previous minutes: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-ws-cg-minutes.html
January 17 and 31 minutes approved
Jonathan requested an additional agenda item: WSDL SPARQL review
[DONE] ACTION: Steve to send email about RDF mapping for CDL to SWCG: w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-ws-cg-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: Hugo to (possibly) work on an updated glossary and bring it for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-ws-cg-minutes.html#action01]
[PENDING] ACTION: Steve to negotiate a deadline for delivering RDF mapping for their Primer - awaiting responses [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-ws-cg-minutes.html#action04]
[PENDING] ACTION: Steve to solicit resource for a RDF mapping for CDL - awaiting responses [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-ws-cg-minutes.html#action02]
Steve:
Bob: We are on the cusp of Last Call on the WSDL document. Editorial tweaks, then publish. Concludes at the end of March. Mark won't co-chair in the interim, will only be an observer through Cannes.
Jonathan: JBoss and WSO2 are shooting for WS-A test complete by FTF.
Jonathan: WSDL: RDF task force constituted: Tony chairs.
Steve: Does WSO2 count as a WSDL2.0 implementation?
Tony: WSO2 contributing to Woden with IBM — that still makes one implementation.
Mike: Building consensus about solutions for one-way messaging erratum. Some interest in simplifying the MEP structure. Slow but steady progress. Expect a clear view of where they're going by Cannes.
Steve: Has commitment for two implementations. Need to sort out the test suite. Primer taking shape (see ed version). Formal underpinnings/type system stuff also taking shape.
Philippe: How many tests?
Steve: 50–60 range, covering every feature. All primer examples also are made available as open source.
Yves: still sorting out issues and groundwork prior to 1st WD.
Philippe: Notice new pub rules and transition checker — forward to your editors. Do we need an offline version?
(no calls for one)
scribe: Make your TP reservations right away.
Philippe: Why do we have a calendar? do we need a separate one?
Steve: No.
RESOLUTION: drop the WS calendar, use the member calendar instead.
Philippe: WS-A FTF in May?
Bob: 3–4 May tentative date, looking for a location. on the east coast. possibly Manhattan.
Jonathan: WSDL doesn't have a future FTF date yet — looking for more data on implementations to set an interop date.
Mike: Looking at future FTFs, possibly co-locate with WS-A in May? Lot of overlap in members.
Philippe: Also whether there is a need for a joint meeting.
Hugo: Presented the plan last time. We flipped around on the status of RDF Mapping in WSDL. Ended up deciding that we would plan to remove it from the Rec track. Up for review currently. Big change is the addition of the Semantic Annotations WG, also under review until the end of this month. SWSIG extension also under review.
Philippe: Chair of CG changed. Hugo ducked the bullet. Philippe was too slow ;-)
Philippe: Director replied to the message last week. Any follow-up on that?
Steve: Need to discuss what the solutions are. We haven't minuted adequately what the solution space might be. We need to have some understanding ourselves.
Jonathan: We had some dispair that the implementations are so separate. the two communities are simply divergent.
Philippe: Need to make sure any coordination mandates are matched by interest by both communities. Not sure what’s going to help here. Propose we close down this item. Don't believe the Director will be as inclined to push for mappings in future charters.
RESOLUTION: Make sure any coordination mandates are matched by interest by both communities. No more follow-up in the CG.
Philippe: Do you expect review from other groups?
Bob: WSDL WG is most important. Looking for building some issue by Cannes.
Jonathan: will start the review right away (not waiting for official pub)
Hugo: We are very close to publishing — waiting for Tony to add an ed note.
Tony: It’s not going into the WSDL doc — the SOAP doc instead.
Philippe: Moratorium starts soon.
Hugo: Should be published on Thursday.
Philippe: Need to send announcement to the chairs list. (Bob this means you.)
Hugo: Is there a good way to repub CR drafts? Is it worth republishing since we're close? perhaps a FTF topic.
Bob: What’s the heartbeat req?
Philippe: 1 doc every three months. The LC will fulfill.
Hugo: Thought it was changed to each doc every three months.
… each Working Group SHOULD publish in the W3C technical reports index a new draft of each active technical report at least once every three months.
Jonathan: Need to consider that for WSDL too.
Philippe: So only WSDL is on the critical path for LC review?
Philippe: Received notice of potential meeting around this topic at TP. Nobody’s aware of one. Don't really know the purpose, other than that we don't have any action to take.
(Ball’s in their court.)
Philippe: Check the registration of your group. do you want to have a meal/meeting at the TP?
Mike: Not there till Thurs.
Philippe: Friday? Addressing is meeting… Let’s have lunch at noon on Friday.
RESOLUTION: lunch together on Friday March 3, at noon.
Jonathan: ok to postpone it until we get Michael around, not a blocking issue for WSDL.
Philippe: Skipped till CMSMCQ is present
Jonathan: Dan asked for a sanity check before going to CR. The WG hasn't officially agreed to do such a check, but Hugo found some issues.
Hugo: Unfortunately, there is a fairly major problem in that the format doesn't meet the restrictions of the IRI style that they use. Doesn't see an easy way to change the messages, nor to fix the WSDL side.
Philippe: We can decide it’s a WSDL problem, or a SPARQL problem.
Hugo: Hard to call it a SPARQL problem, as it’s a deficiency in the descriptive capability. Either we can do a dirty job, or introduce substantive changes. The restriction on the schema is in the style, but what they want still can be serialized as an IRI. We had a clear separation between style and serialization, a dirty job would mix these.
Jonathan: Maybe a joint meeting at TP.
Philippe: DAWG on th/f, WSDL m/t.
Hugo: Can't really go to CR with this flaw, the WSDL is central to the spec.
Philippe: What are their CR plans? Expected implementations? in terms of WSDL?
Hugo: Not clear they are planning to use the WSDL for anything other than describing their protocol. With the WSDL they will have an opportunity to play with WSDL later.
Jonathan: We asked them to contribute their WSDL to the test suite — didn't get it yet.
Philippe: This might put the HTTP binding in jeapordy.
Jonathan: We discussed splitting it out from the CR to let it mature more, we decided not to but we might have to revisit.
Hugo: MarkN had a fairly substantial comment on the HTTP binding too. Too bad he didn't look more carefully in LC. ends by asking that the binding be dropped. likely to have more discussions on this topic.
Philippe: Next call Mar 15th.
[PENDING] ACTION: Hugo to (possibly) work on an updated glossary and bring it for review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-ws-cg-minutes.html#action01]
[PENDING] ACTION: SRT to negotiate a deadline for delivering RDF mapping for their Primer - awaiting responses [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-ws-cg-minutes.html#action04]
[PENDING] ACTION: SRT to solicit resource for a RDF mapping for CDL - awaiting responses [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-ws-cg-minutes.html#action02]
[DONE] ACTION: Steve to send email about RDF mapping for CDL to SWCG: w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-ws-cg-minutes.html#action03]