See also: IRC log
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes at http://www.w3.org/2006/10/24-ws-cg-minutes.html
yves: not much to report. need to go to PR and we also have the theoretical ackground to be published
pauld: have draft we are about to publish as LCWD. pushing towards the bar. hoping to get published. LC period to end Jan 12 also publishing FPWD of advanced spec
Philippe: are you sending the request today?
pauld: can I send request before ?
Philippe: nice to give web team chance to review the document
pauld: making reasonable progress despite participation. made two calls for participation... looking for implementation experience, especially from OSS community. other part more of a challenge. have a mechanism for detecting patterns in schemas. get people to talk about how they constructed their schemas. we need input from those that produce schemas that are interested in this wrk
jacek: have resolved all issues except 2. first shoud be ok. second is design issue, whether we should be able to annotate external schemas. awaiting concrete proposal, otherwise close as out of scope because charter is kind of vague. if we get a subission, then we might take on this work. have also discussed implementations. people have APIs and GUIs for editing and parsing SAWSDL... all of these can be kind of proofs for implementation. we have issue that is later in today's CG agenda... to see if anyone is still intending to review the draft spec. should we expect review?
Michael: haven't spoken with chair about this recently... don't believe we have made much progress on this
bob: once we got past the point of representing all possible uris not covered by the spec... folk have pretty much settled on including what forms of addressing will do, and not what it will preclude for both wsdl and policy. may be overly hopeful, but have fingers crossed. we will be polling all known implementations that care about the wsdl bobding specification. noting the approach taken by xquery and xpath
Philippe: so the proposal is to move to PR or back to WD?
Bob: if those that care are interested in extending the CR period and moving forward from that POV
Chris: had a f2f two weeks ago. Closed all framework/attachment issues. Approved to be published as LC.. now request to other WGs to schedule the LC period.. end of LC is January 12.. intent to have all LC issues before the January f2f.. Good progress on primer and guidelines.. we have drafts and a number of issues opened against them.. we'll now focus on those until January.
Bob: we talked about coordinating on attachment of policy to an endpoint.
Chris: rendered moot by the resolution of the issue on our side.
Bob: ok, won't expect any further action on it.
tony: jonathan did put together a summary of the f2f. he put together the summary dashboard for the testing. added awful lot of test cases to test suite. looks like we'll need another f2f before we are complete. considerable progress has been made
jacek: implementers f2f?
tony: yes
Philippe: we are basing on the as yet unpublished SOAP1.2 PER. also we are basing testing on assertions. could be used for policy wg
Chris: could you explain more?
Philippe: from the description, we can expect what to find on the wire. using ws-i log tool to log messages. throug transformations, we can produce some xpath expressions to test the messages against the wsdl
Chris: using schematron?
Philippe: no, using our own mechanism (XPath expressions). See a ws-i log ran against those assertions)
<pauld> [some configurations of the] ws-i test tool doesn't handle HTTP GET
Philippe: implementers did not want to show what was done yet... not ready to commit to cvs. pretty close to schematron
<pauld> we have a non-normative reference to Schematron in databinding :-)
Chris: I have been working on a schematron based version of the ws-i testing tools
<pauld> and used Schematron in the WS-Addressing WG
tony: we did consider schematron, but this was developed ... what was the reason we didn't use?
Philippe: don't recall. should be able to convert to schematron
<pauld> you have more control over reporting context in straight XSLT
Chris: now in a position to make the request to publish the SOAP 1.2 PER (part 1 & 3). And a part 3 for one way.. heads-up for everyone: we'll need review.. also resolved concerns for multicast in part 3. agreed to publish a separate version of the MEP that explicitely support multicast.. also agreed that, if there is submission for MTOM policy assertion, we'll work on it and publish a working note out of it.. the multicast draft will come in addition to part 3.
Philippe: any other f2f scheduled?
no response
plh; what we are looking for is commitments from other WGs here for their reviews
Chris: yes. in particular: addressing, wsdl, sawsdl, xmlp
Bob: we'll look at it for addressing
Philippe: are we prepared to do these reviews by jan 12?
bob: I will try to bring this before my wg
jacek: we will try to review
tony: wsdl will review, at least you'll get comments from me
Chris: will ask XMLP
Philippe: yves can you ask choreography?
yves: yes
ACTION: Yves to check with Choreography WG to see if they can/will review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/21-ws-cg-minutes.html#action01]
ACTION: Bob, Tony, jacek and Chris to check with their respective WGs on review of WS-Policy LC specs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/21-ws-cg-minutes.html#action02]
jacek: we have been asked in one of our LC issues to emphasise that we can use SA for schema too. possibly split into two documents. have reorganized that there are annotations for wsdl and for schema. possibly change the title to make this clearer. to make it more likely that people not miss this point. here is where the review from XSD WG would be useful. question is whether w3c changing the title that we would be stepping on people's toes
Philippe: don't believe you'd be stepping on anyone's toes
Michael: depends on scope statement. as long as you make sure to avoid mis-reading to say that this is THE singular way to annotate schemas... if it is A way to do so, and no one mistakes it for exclusivlry see no reason for anyone to object. our next meeting is in 11 days on 1 dec and I will not be on that call. so, you may not get an answer in time
jacek: would it make sense for me to attend the call on 1 dec? discusion of meeting coords
Michael: I will report to david e that you will be willing to attend
jacek: says hi to david e :-)
Philippe: I can't see why someone might take issue with this. change of title should not change the scope
jacek: we thought that there might be difficulty
Michael: you never know how some might react
Philippe: ws-policy wg wants a means for external attachment to wsdl1.1 elements. for wsdl2.0, there is already a component model with a URI scheme for identifying them. for wsdl1.1 there is no such thing
Philippe: so question for group at large is is there any group here that would object to the ws-policy wg doing this work for wsdl1.1... not originally in their scope, and not REC track, but will be WG Note
tony: I feel that the description Wg is really concerned with WSDL2.0 rather than 1.1... would be willing to review the document.. can't guarantee, but we will review officially
Chris: work is largely derivative of the wsdl2.0 component identifier scheme
[banter]
Philippe: f&p removed. regarding MTOM, have not made decision to do this. one member is still keen on defining a wsdl extension. looking to see if a policy assertion could be adapted for use as a wsdl extension. don't know if wsdl wg was willing to do that work. may be able to push it as a WG Note
tony: that is pretty much the conclusion we came to
Philippe: this would be related to the work that XMLP is likely to produce. should not work on this in WSDL until we see the XMLP work
tony: good observaion
Philippe: dec 5, two weeks. any regrets?
pauld: yeah, I will be talking at the time
Regrets from Paul and Michael.