IRC log of ws-desc on 2006-10-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:59:53 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #ws-desc
13:59:53 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/10/12-ws-desc-irc
14:00:02 [TonyR]: zakim, this is wsdl
14:00:02 [Zakim]: ok, TonyR; that matches WS_DescWG(WSDL)10:00AM
14:00:13 [TonyR]: zakim, who is on the phone?
14:00:13 [Zakim]: On the phone I see ??P14
14:00:20 [TonyR]: zakim, ?? is me
14:00:20 [Zakim]: +TonyR; got it
14:00:42 [plh]: hi tony
14:01:12 [plh]: I'm in an other meeting right now, but if Arthur and Jonathan shows up, I'm also interested in resolving my http action item
14:01:18 [Jonathan]: Jonathan has joined #ws-desc
14:02:07 [Jonathan]: trying to find a quiet spot with wireless.
14:02:23 [Zakim]: +Canon
14:02:29 [Zakim]: +Arthur_Ryman
14:03:02 [Zakim]: + +1.408.480.aaaa
14:03:08 [Zakim]: +Roland_Merrick
14:03:25 [Jonathan]: zakim, aaaa is Jonathan
14:03:25 [Zakim]: +Jonathan; got it
14:03:47 [jkaputin]: jkaputin has joined #ws-desc
14:03:50 [Arthur]: Arthur has joined #ws-desc
14:03:53 [Jonathan]: zakim, who's making noise?
14:04:07 [Zakim]: Jonathan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: TonyR (52%), Canon (19%), Roland_Merrick (36%)
14:04:34 [Zakim]: +Plh
14:04:40 [Jonathan]: zakim, who's making noise?
14:04:54 [Zakim]: Jonathan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 6 (20%), TonyR (43%), Plh (9%)
14:06:37 [jjm]: jjm has joined #ws-desc
14:07:29 [jjm2]: jjm2 has joined #ws-desc
14:09:57 [TonyR]: scribe: tonyr
14:10:29 [TonyR]: plh: wanting help with action item - cannot see HTTP headers in the logs
14:11:33 [TonyR]: arthur: showing the location of the HTTP headers, concerning good messages
14:12:28 [TonyR]: arthur: we're using the WSI test tools
14:14:32 [TonyR]: arthur: we're not catching the messages as XML, because the message may not be XML, or it may be well-formed XML
14:15:07 [TonyR]: plh: should steal the code from the Addressing test tools that transforms the WS-I format into more useful format
14:15:34 [TonyR]: plh: should be relatively easy because we're only interested in relatively few headers
14:22:30 [TonyR]: lengthy discussion of logging details - need to switch logging on and off to isolate each test case, and whether it would be simpler to split the log ourselves.
14:23:42 [TonyR]: plh: have enough information to proceed now
14:25:36 [TonyR]: jonathan: in addressing we crafted tests in the form of X-Paths, here we have complex X-Paths
14:25:54 [TonyR]: plh: but in addressing we didn't have a description - here we do
14:26:42 [jjm]: jjm has joined #ws-desc
14:27:15 [TonyR]: arthur: we can use the Component Model Interchange format to provide the X-Paths
14:28:00 [youenn]: youenn has joined #ws-desc
14:28:46 [TonyR]: plh: aim is to have the tools ready by the time of the ftf - just have to write the tests
14:29:10 [TonyR]: jonathan: there's a lot of work there: every test will require a custom X-Path
14:29:21 [TonyR]: arthur: what about using schematron?
14:29:29 [pauld]: pauld has joined #ws-desc
14:35:35 [TonyR]: arthur: we need a format for the log file - can probably base it on the addressing work
14:36:33 [youenn_]: youenn_ has joined #ws-desc
14:36:47 [TonyR]: jonathan: need to tackle the question of running all the test cases into a single log file - much easier for testers, but harder to parse, because we need to be able separate the test cases
14:37:13 [TonyR]: ... need to ensure that the test case id is embedded in the message
14:40:08 [youenn]: youenn has joined #ws-desc
14:43:46 [TonyR]: arthur: we have the WSDL files for all of our tests - we can use them
14:44:10 [TonyR]: jonathan: that's different from the addressing tests - only had one endpoint
14:45:16 [TonyR]: arthur: we could play back a log file either as a client or as a server
14:46:49 [TonyR]: jonathan: looking at an example - perhaps we can include some basic scripting for the tests in the WSDL file in some form other than comments
14:47:06 [TonyR]: arthur: perhaps in the documentation, or in the test metadata?
14:47:46 [TonyR]: jonathan: in the metadata would be good. Or perhaps we could simply say "run through the operations in the order in the WSDL file"?
14:49:26 [TonyR]: arthur: volunteers to take on Jonathan's actions, allowing Jonathan to focus on how the ftf will run
14:49:49 [Zakim]: -Roland_Merrick
14:50:03 [Zakim]: This conference is scheduled to end in 10 minutes; all ports must be freed
14:50:17 [TonyR]: plh: will get the log transformations done in 2 weeks
14:50:57 [TonyR]: jonathan: does someone volunteer to write a change to the test metadata to incorporate scripting?
14:51:19 [TonyR]: omnes: chirping crickets...
14:53:46 [TonyR]: discussion of using the existing test metadata, particularly the "expected result" information
14:54:59 [TonyR]: arthur: perhaps we can include assertions in the test metadata, perhaps even multiple assertions, to check the expected results
14:55:02 [Zakim]: This conference is scheduled to end in 5 minutes; all ports must be freed
14:55:27 [TonyR]: ACTION: Arthur to document how to add test cases, and how to run the scripts for the test cases
14:56:38 [TonyR]: ACTION: ALL to ponder how to run the tests
14:57:23 [Allen]: Allen has joined #ws-desc
14:57:45 [Zakim]: -Plh
14:57:46 [Zakim]: -Arthur_Ryman
14:57:47 [Zakim]: -TonyR
14:57:48 [Zakim]: -Canon
14:57:50 [Zakim]: WS_DescWG(WSDL)10:00AM has ended
14:57:51 [Zakim]: Attendees were TonyR, Canon, Arthur_Ryman, +1.408.480.aaaa, Roland_Merrick, Jonathan, Plh
14:58:11 [TonyR]: zakim, this will be wsdwg
14:58:11 [Zakim]: ok, TonyR; I see WS_DescWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
14:58:20 [alewis]: alewis has joined #ws-desc
14:59:29 [TonyR]: zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:29 [Zakim]: apparently WS_DescWG(WSDL)10:00AM has ended, TonyR
14:59:30 [Zakim]: On IRC I see alewis, Allen, youenn, pauld, jjm, Arthur, Jonathan, RRSAgent, plh, Zakim, TonyR, sanjiva, charlton
14:59:49 [plh]: zakim, list conferences
14:59:49 [Zakim]: I see GA_WebCGM()11:00AM, Team_(validate)14:03Z, VB_VBWG()10:00AM, WS_DescWG()11:00AM, GA_SVGWG()9:30AM, MWI_BPWG()10:00AM, WAI_Team()10:45AM, XML_PMWG()11:00AM active
14:59:52 [Zakim]: also scheduled at this time are I18N_Core_WG(WS-I18N)11:00AM, DIG_TAMI()11:00AM, WS_DescWG(WSDL)10:00AM, SW_HCLS()11:00AM, DI_DIWG(dpf)10:00AM
15:00:02 [plh]: zakim, this is WS_DescWG()11:00A
15:00:07 [Zakim]: ok, plh; that matches WS_DescWG()11:00AM
15:00:22 [JacekK]: JacekK has joined #ws-desc
15:00:26 [TonyR]: zakim, ?? is me
15:00:29 [Zakim]: +Plh
15:00:31 [Zakim]: +TonyR; got it
15:01:10 [TomJ]: TomJ has joined #ws-desc
15:01:17 [Zakim]: +Jonathan
15:01:35 [Jonathan]: zakim, who's on the phone?
15:01:35 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Amelia_Lewis, Charlton_Barreto, Canon, TonyR, Plh, Jonathan
15:01:42 [Zakim]: +Arthur_Ryman
15:01:44 [Zakim]: +Tom_Jordahl
15:03:31 [Zakim]: + +1.351.250.aaaa
15:03:46 [Zakim]: +??P52
15:03:55 [JacekK]: zakim, aaaa is probably me
15:03:55 [Zakim]: +JacekK?; got it
15:04:01 [Allen]: zakim, ??P52 is Allen
15:04:01 [Zakim]: +Allen; got it
15:04:06 [pauld]: zakim, code?
15:04:06 [Zakim]: the conference code is 97394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), pauld
15:05:05 [Zakim]: +??P53
15:05:20 [pauld]: zakim, ??P53 is me
15:05:20 [Zakim]: +pauld; got it
15:05:36 [pauld]: zakim, am i clicking?
15:05:37 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, pauld.
15:05:50 [pauld]: zakim, who is making noise?
15:06:01 [Zakim]: pauld, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: TonyR (19%), Jonathan (29%), Plh (10%), JacekK? (9%), pauld (39%)
15:06:05 [pauld]: scribe: pauld
15:06:15 [Vivek]: Vivek has joined #ws-desc
15:06:24 [JacekK]: zakim, who is making noise?
15:06:33 [pauld]: Topic: Administrivia
15:06:35 [Zakim]: JacekK, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Amelia_Lewis (8%), Jonathan (49%), Plh (14%), JacekK? (8%)
15:06:47 [pauld]: last week's minutes approved
15:06:47 [JacekK]: zakim, mute me
15:06:47 [Zakim]: JacekK? should now be muted
15:06:58 [Zakim]: +Roberto_Chinnici
15:07:10 [Zakim]: +Vivek_Pandey
15:07:41 [TonyR]: zakim, who is making noise?
15:07:52 [Zakim]: TonyR, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jonathan (73%), pauld (44%)
15:08:22 [pauld]: discussion of the LC124 everlasting action
15:08:37 [JacekK]: my second action fulfilled: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Oct/0006
15:08:38 [pauld]: ACTION: pdowney to review the Schema WG note on versioning in 1.1
15:08:58 [JacekK]: zakim, unmute me
15:08:58 [Zakim]: JacekK? should no longer be muted
15:09:51 [Roberto]: Roberto has joined #ws-desc
15:09:57 [Zakim]: +Gilbert_Pilz
15:10:17 [pauld]: chair: up and coming interop event logisitics and registration on our public page
15:10:58 [pauld]: s/chair/Marsh/
15:11:04 [gpilz]: gpilz has joined #ws-desc
15:11:16 [pauld]: Marsh: please note my Email address and affiliation has changef
15:11:24 [pauld]: s/gef/ged/
15:11:56 [pauld]: http://www.w3.org/2006/10/interop2-logistic.html
15:13:09 [pauld]: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/wsdl_interop2/
15:13:37 [pauld]: plh: will update registration to canvas opinion for a social event
15:13:59 [pauld]: Topic: Possible New Addressing Related Issue
15:14:23 [pauld]: arthur: looks like one for the Addressing WG
15:14:30 [pauld]: gil: they already got it
15:14:46 [pauld]: Topic: Features and Properties At Risk
15:15:31 [pauld]: youenn: sent a proposal, took the existing F&P for engaging MTOM and repurposed them for XML extensibility
15:16:48 [pauld]: .. reused the MTOM URI to namespace the extension element
15:16:51 [pauld]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Oct/0011.html
15:17:20 [pauld]: Marsh: what does "optional" mean, didn't see an answer in the thread
15:17:45 [pauld]: youenn: a client may use HTTP headers such as content negotiation, server decides
15:17:56 [Arthur]: q+
15:18:13 [pauld]: .. same semantics as with the existing features and properties
15:18:25 [pauld]: Marsh: any interaction between wsdl:required?
15:18:45 [pauld]: youenn: yes, wsdl:required gives the required property optional value
15:19:31 [pauld]: Marsh: a client can ignore it, send text/xml, but server may return XOP which I can't digest
15:19:54 [pauld]: youenn: content negotiation may allow a client to preclude returning XOP
15:20:17 [pauld]: Marsh: multi-part encoded envelopes?
15:20:45 [pauld]: youenn: with content-negotiation, you can specify XOP, XML, or Multi-part related
15:21:06 [pauld]: Marsh: and then some people may want SwA ..
15:21:17 [Roberto]: q+
15:21:23 [pauld]: q?>
15:21:29 [pauld]: ack, Arthur
15:21:46 [pauld]: arthur: should be a WSDL namespace, rather than the XMP one
15:22:05 [pauld]: .. we're going to define a schema, we don't have the right to own that namespace
15:22:07 [Jonathan]: ack art
15:22:11 [pauld]: plh: we could ask permission
15:22:18 [pauld]: .. send them mail
15:22:35 [Jonathan]: ack rob
15:23:30 [pauld]: roberto: I'm perplexed by the optionality, even a client which doesn't know about the extension has to be aware of the negotiation. We're giving license to a server to suprise clients
15:23:50 [plh]: q+
15:24:12 [pauld]: Marsh: we need to add a statement to say, if you get text/xml then you have to explicity have marked XOP as an allowable returned media type
15:24:22 [Jonathan]: ack plh
15:24:25 [pauld]: youenn: required MTOM is very useful for output message
15:24:40 [pauld]: plh: why are we talking about content negotiation here
15:25:01 [pauld]: youenn: content-negotiation only applies to the output message
15:26:49 [pauld]: plh: thought optional marker means it isn't *required*
15:27:07 [pauld]: roberto: not the semantics of wsdl:required we've been using
15:28:13 [pauld]: youenn: two things: whether the client can send MTOM, and if the client has a choice to send and receive MTOM (that is support and engage)
15:29:05 [pauld]: youenn: we can make a refinement, need to think about it
15:29:34 [pauld]: Marsh: it's a tricky area, we may need a parameter rather than reusing wsdl:required
15:30:26 [pauld]: Marsh: we're discussing this under removing F&P, does this hold back our discussing removing F&P?
15:31:42 [pauld]: Marsh: not personally interested in adding this proposal, what are the implications of adding another element
15:32:00 [pauld]: jjm: it's not adding, but moving existing functionality
15:32:24 [pauld]: arthur: were the semantics with F&P clear of engaging MTOM, you'd still need another spec
15:32:38 [pauld]: youenn: that spec already exists
15:32:56 [pauld]: arthur: not for engaging in WSDL .20
15:33:03 [pauld]: s/.20/2.0/
15:33:22 [pauld]: discussion of existing F&P engagement and wsdl:required
15:33:52 [pauld]: arthur: don't overload wsdl:required, add another attribute
15:34:12 [pauld]: Marsh: existing F&P engagement was clear?
15:34:31 [pauld]: Tony: it's becoming clear it wasn't clear
15:35:25 [pauld]: plh: WS-Policy may want to review this assertion
15:35:38 [pauld]: arthur: what's wrong with Canon using WS-Policy
15:35:55 [pauld]: jjm: WS-Policy isn't here now
15:35:56 [JacekK]: q+
15:36:05 [pauld]: Marsh: they may beat us, yet :-(
15:36:33 [pauld]: arthur: it's an adjunct?
15:36:38 [Jonathan]: ack jacek
15:36:45 [pauld]: plh: that may make WS-Policy happier
15:37:35 [pauld]: jacek: part line might be to use WS-Policy in which case our defining an XML extension might not be welcomed by the Policy WG
15:37:52 [pauld]: plh: asked the Policy WG, and they said it's fine
15:39:12 [pauld]: Marsh: it's more of an implementation thing, Microsoft, for example, are more interested in supporting usingAddressing inside WS-Policy and not direct extensions
15:39:27 [pauld]: s/not direct/not as a direct/
15:39:57 [pauld]: Marsh: separate spec because it needs more work, may attract WS-Policy flak?
15:41:54 [pauld]: Marsh: (as WSO2 rep) I don't see this as being interoperable
15:42:26 [pauld]: Marsh: natural place for engaging MTOM in WSDL would be XMLP (if they were active) possibly Policy
15:43:00 [pauld]: plh: Policy are only chartered to build a framework, XMLP are in maintainance mode
15:43:13 [pauld]: jjm: and they're not interested in description
15:43:34 [pauld]: jacek: is that the XMLP not interested, or people in the WG not interested
15:43:42 [pauld]: s/ted/ted?/
15:44:12 [pauld]: plh: they're not chartered to do more work beyond the PER
15:44:56 [pauld]: plh: it's going to happen here or not at all
15:45:48 [pauld]: pauld: is there interest in having a Web Services Core WG to pick up this kind of work?
15:46:21 [pauld]: plh: such a WG would be more for maintainance and not new work
15:46:57 [pauld]: discussion of how specs may be passed from WG to WG
15:47:24 [chad]: chad has joined #ws-desc
15:48:06 [Jonathan]: chad: new poll
15:48:06 [chad]: new poll
15:49:01 [pauld]: chad, option 0: close with no action
15:49:30 [pauld]: chad, option 1: remove F&P with no replacement for MTOM
15:50:01 [pauld]: chad, option 2: add Canon proposal as an adjunct
15:50:40 [pauld]: chad, option 3: add Canon proposal as a separate Last Call document
15:52:06 [pauld]: Marsh: the last call protects our main deliverable being stalled by comments from the WS-Policy WG
15:52:34 [pauld]: chad, option 4: define WS-Policy assertion
15:52:52 [pauld]: tom: opposed to being forced to support WS-Policy just to use MTOM
15:53:21 [pauld]: plh: this would be similar to usingAddressing, it can be used with policy
15:53:23 [Zakim]: -Charlton_Barreto
15:54:36 [pauld]: zakim, who is on the phone?
15:54:36 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Amelia_Lewis, Canon, TonyR, Plh, Jonathan, Arthur_Ryman, Tom_Jordahl, JacekK?, Allen, pauld, Roberto_Chinnici, Vivek_Pandey, Gilbert_Pilz
15:54:44 [pauld]: zakim, who is making noise?
15:54:54 [Zakim]: pauld, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: TonyR (9%), Tom_Jordahl (37%), JacekK? (20%)
15:55:19 [JacekK]: zakim, am I making noise?
15:55:19 [Zakim]: I don't understand your question, JacekK.
15:55:38 [pauld]: zakim, smoke me a kipper :-)
15:55:38 [Zakim]: I'm glad that smiley is there, pauld
15:56:07 [pauld]: discussion clarifiing the options
15:56:27 [pauld]: zakim, who is making noise?
15:56:37 [Zakim]: pauld, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Amelia_Lewis (16%), Canon (22%), Arthur_Ryman (10%), Jonathan (39%), Plh (9%), JacekK? (21%)
15:56:46 [JacekK]: zakim, mute me
15:56:46 [Zakim]: JacekK? should now be muted
15:58:11 [pauld]: Marsh: who decides if we have to go back to last call?
15:58:26 [pauld]: plh: the Director
15:58:48 [pauld]: tom: we had a clearly marked feature "At Risk"
15:59:21 [pauld]: plh: expect WS-Policy to want to review if we add an MTOM extension
16:00:10 [JacekK]: zakim, unmute me
16:00:10 [Zakim]: JacekK? should no longer be muted
16:00:17 [TonyR]: chad, list options
16:00:31 [pauld]: jjm: there is precident with WS-Addressing, no?
16:01:47 [pauld]: plh: separate specification may be the easiest way
16:02:14 [pauld]: tom: makes a big difference, I might implement WSDL 2.0 and not be aware of the other specification
16:02:55 [JacekK]: chad, option 4: add Canon proposal + define WS-Policy assertion in a separate LC document
16:03:06 [pauld]: chad, option4 define WS-Policy assertion in addition to Option 3
16:03:19 [pauld]: chad, option4: define WS-Policy assertion in addition to Option 3
16:03:23 [TomJ]: vote 2
16:03:33 [pauld]: vote: tomj: 2
16:03:41 [gpilz]: vote: 2
16:03:43 [JacekK]: vote: 4,3,1
16:03:48 [Allen]: vote: 3, 2
16:03:49 [TonyR]: vote: 4, 3, 1, 2, 0
16:03:52 [Jonathan]: vote: 1, 4, 3
16:03:52 [alewis]: vote: 3, 4, 2 0
16:04:00 [youenn]: vote: 2,4
16:04:01 [JacekK]: vote: 4,3,1,2
16:04:04 [JacekK]: zakim, mute me
16:04:04 [Zakim]: JacekK? should now be muted
16:04:07 [TomJ]: vote: 2,3,4
16:04:09 [Arthur]: vote: 4, 3, 2, 1, 0
16:04:11 [plh]: vote: 4,2,1
16:04:15 [Roberto]: vote: 4, 3, 2, 1
16:04:17 [pauld]: vote: 4, 1
16:04:25 [jjm]: vote: 2, 4
16:04:33 [gpilz]: vote: 2, 3, 4
16:04:33 [Vivek]: vote: 4,3,2,1
16:05:04 [pauld]: chad, count
16:05:04 [chad]: Question: unknown
16:05:04 [chad]: Option 0: close with no action (0)
16:05:04 [chad]: Option 1: remove F&P with no replacement for MTOM (1)
16:05:04 [chad]: Option 2: add Canon proposal as an adjunct (4)
16:05:04 [chad]: Option 3: add Canon proposal as a separate Last Call document (2)
16:05:05 [chad]: Option 4: define WS-Policy assertion in addition to Option 3 (7)
16:05:08 [chad]: 14 voters: alewis (3,4,2,0),Allen (3,2),Arthur (4,3,2,1,0),gpilz (2,3,4),JacekK (4,3,1,2),jjm (2,4),Jonathan (1,4,3),pauld (4,1),plh (4,2,1),Roberto (4,3,2,1),TomJ (2,3,4),TonyR (4,3,1,2,0),Vivek (4,3,2,1),youenn (2,4)
16:05:10 [chad]: Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
16:05:12 [chad]: Round 2: First elimination round.
16:05:14 [chad]: Eliminating candidadates without any votes.
16:05:16 [chad]: Eliminating candidate 0.
16:05:18 [chad]: Round 3: Eliminating candidate 1.
16:05:20 [chad]: Candidate 4 is elected.
16:05:22 [chad]: Winner is option 4 - define WS-Policy assertion in addition to Option 3
16:05:25 [jjm]: (capturing my earlier comment:) for the record, my company wants WSDL soon, MTOM support and cannot rely on WS-Policy yet
16:06:05 [alewis]: chad, detail?
16:06:15 [pauld]: chad, details?
16:06:22 [pauld]: chad, details
16:07:13 [youenn_]: youenn_ has joined #ws-desc
16:07:29 [Zakim]: +Charlton_Barreto
16:09:16 [pauld]: arthur: we can make an informative reference to WS-Policy
16:10:08 [pauld]: jjm: can we wait a week while we consider our position?
16:10:39 [pauld]: arthur: we're all agreed to remove F&P?
16:11:13 [pauld]: Marsh: we could remove F&P, if we have consensus to take option 2,3 or 4
16:11:23 [pauld]: jjm: let's do it next week
16:12:22 [pauld]: arthur: we decided to make a decision this week
16:12:53 [pauld]: .. what's the fall out from removing it, don't we need to take action to inform people
16:13:22 [pauld]: Tony: we could ask the editors to remove F&P ahead of the decision
16:13:33 [pauld]: arthur: don't want to branch
16:13:48 [pauld]: arthur: we're slipping week by week
16:14:05 [pauld]: jjm: it's a big decision and it takes time
16:14:40 [pauld]: arthur: how likely is it we are going to keep F&P?
16:15:22 [pauld]: Marsh: are there any objections to removing F&P this week on the understanding we'll use Youenn's proposal in some form
16:15:35 [pauld]: jjm: I'd object to making that decision today
16:16:29 [pauld]: arthur: I'm OK to wait ONE more week, but unhappy to delay any further than that
16:16:54 [pauld]: Marsh: we can formalize the process if we wait one more week
16:17:05 [pauld]: pauld: +1 to Arthur
16:17:16 [TomJ]: I also support Arthur's desire to not put this off any longer
16:17:49 [Zakim]: -Plh
16:17:51 [JacekK]: q+ to add a short call for review for SAWSDL to the end of the agenda
16:18:11 [Zakim]: -Amelia_Lewis
16:18:15 [pauld]: Topic: ISSUE-81
16:18:27 [pauld]: s/ISSUE-/CR/
16:18:56 [JacekK]: zakim, unmute me
16:18:56 [Zakim]: JacekK? should no longer be muted
16:19:01 [Zakim]: -Charlton_Barreto
16:20:37 [JacekK]: "A Binding component that defines bindings for an Interface component
16:20:38 [JacekK]: MUST define binding for all the faults of that Interface component that
16:20:38 [JacekK]: are referenced from any of the operations in that Interface component."
16:20:43 [pauld]: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR081
16:21:02 [pauld]: s/CR81/CR081/
16:21:31 [TomJ]: +1 to Jaceks text
16:21:47 [pauld]: Marsh: any objections to accepting Jacek's proposal?
16:22:03 [pauld]: RESOLUTION: close CR081 with Jacek's proposal
16:22:08 [gpilz]: This resolution generates a new assertion, no?
16:22:29 [pauld]: Topic: Last Call of SAWSDL
16:23:02 [pauld]: jacek: we'd like the WG to review our Last Call specification for Semantic Annotations for WSDL
16:23:04 [JacekK]: ack
16:23:08 [JacekK]: ack JacekK
16:23:08 [Zakim]: JacekK, you wanted to add a short call for review for SAWSDL to the end of the agenda
16:23:46 [pauld]: http://www.w3.org/TR/sawsdl/
16:24:34 [pauld]: ACTION: Jonathan to conduct a review of the SAWSDL Last Call WD
16:24:57 [pauld]: Marsh: expect to skip telcons as our issues list dries up
16:25:15 [pauld]: RRSAgent, make logs public
16:25:21 [Zakim]: -Gilbert_Pilz
16:25:24 [Zakim]: -Arthur_Ryman
16:25:33 [pauld]: RRSAgent, generate minutes
16:25:33 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/12-ws-desc-minutes.html pauld
16:25:44 [alewis]: alewis has left #ws-desc
16:25:50 [Zakim]: -Tom_Jordahl
16:25:52 [TomJ]: TomJ has left #ws-desc
16:25:52 [Zakim]: -Jonathan
16:25:53 [Zakim]: -Allen
16:25:54 [Zakim]: -pauld
16:25:56 [Zakim]: -JacekK?
16:25:57 [Zakim]: -Canon
16:25:59 [Zakim]: -Roberto_Chinnici
16:26:00 [Zakim]: -TonyR
16:26:02 [TonyR]: TonyR has left #ws-desc
16:27:24 [Zakim]: -Vivek_Pandey
16:27:26 [Zakim]: WS_DescWG()11:00AM has ended
16:27:27 [Zakim]: Attendees were Amelia_Lewis, Charlton_Barreto, Canon, Plh, TonyR, Jonathan, Arthur_Ryman, Tom_Jordahl, +1.351.250.aaaa, JacekK?, Allen, pauld, Roberto_Chinnici, Vivek_Pandey,
16:27:29 [Zakim]: ... Gilbert_Pilz
16:28:15 [Jonathan]: Meeting: WS Description WG telcon
16:28:20 [Jonathan]: Chair: Jonathan
16:28:31 [Jonathan]: rrsagent, draft minutes
16:28:32 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/12-ws-desc-minutes.html Jonathan
16:32:11 [Vivek]: Vivek has left #ws-desc
18:35:44 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #ws-desc
19:26:33 [sanjiva_]: sanjiva_ has joined #ws-desc