See also: IRC log
<paulc> I am looking for a secretary for today's call.
<monica> good morning
<toufic> hello symon!
Symon Chang from BEA wishes to join the working group.
<scribe> ACTION: Symon to have David to add him to the working group. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/10-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<cferris> scribes for f2f: tuesday am Toufic, tuesday pm Frederick, weds pm Prasad, weds am Felix
Minutes from January 3rd have been adopted.
Attendance for F2F is currently at 12-14 people.
<fsasaki> (f2f zakim pointer)
<abbie> i will be calling in, i am in the bea main office this week OASIS TAB
Reception on the 15th floor for the F2F
BEA to confirm that lunch will be provided at F2F
Paul: discusses the agenda
... any comments on the F2F agenda?
Ashok: Question on the timing.
Paul: Well do last call issues at
10am Tuesday morning and then go forward.
... Might give specific times on 8,9,10 and come back to last call on Wed. so we have time to consider other items
... Last call Tues. Primer and Guidlines on Wed. and More last call on Thurs
... Perhaps go back to last call on Wed. Afternoon.
... If you have other commitments and need to step out please send in your considerations so that we can address them in your absence.
... Item 3c - looking for designated host for March
... Had offer for Dublin (IONA) but concerned and would prefer West coast.
<scribe> ACTION: Abbie to look into hosting March F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/10-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-185 - Look into hosting March F2F [on Abbie Barbir - due 2007-01-17].
David: Jan F2F Room 15046 - ask
at reception. Will have lunch in the rooms.
... F2F page will be updated.
Paul: Moving on to editorial
... FYI Not meeting Wed after F2F
<FrederickHirsch> Updates since last call - Framework,Attachments 4039 XML Base, Primer 4069 xml id, Guidelines 3980 intro, 3982 Assertion author, DTD, version info
<paulc> Update docs from editors: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0052.html
Frederick: Last week we made changes for 4039 4069 3980 3982
Frederick: Changes are mentioned
in the diffs in document
... All changes should be reflected corrrectly. WG Please examine to make sure they are correct.
... At this point we're waiting on all editors before we send it out
... Waiting on feedback before we have an ETA.
Paul: It would be better to have
something on front of WG this week. Even if it is not unanimous
with the editoral team
... Nothing pending in the editors queue. Thanks to the editors.
<paulc> Action 171 done by http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0093.html
Paul: Action 173, Chris?
Chris: not done but will have it done by end of week
Paul: Action 174, David O?
David: No action on that. Will be done by F2F
Paul: Action 177, Felix?
Paul: Action 178, Ashok?
Ashok: No new wording required. Just need to add ttwo references.
fsasaki, is someone else closing these. Do I need to do anything here?
Paul: Action 179, still
... Action 189, Umit and Dan ?
Dan: Action 180 is done.
Paul: Action 181, Umit?
... Action 181, Umit?
Umit: Still working on it. Open.
Paul: Action 182, related 4142,
Umit. Still pending.
... Action on Ashir. Issue 4103 still pending.
Asir: Still pending.
Umit: 181 still open.
Paul: Action 184. Chris Ferris?
Chirs: Philip did this for me.
Paul: Mark 184 done.
... Summarize. Still have some actions. 4041, Some actions on the WSDL element identifiers
... We need a proposal for 179. And 181,182, less important for F2F but need progress. and then Asir's item.
Paul: Sent a note this
... Reviewed the diff document. Nothing substantive. Suggest we say that we have no comments.
... Suggest that the WG assign me an action item.
<scribe> ACTION: Paul to send a note that we have no other comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/10-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
Paul: Action 175, Fabian. Was this actually done?
Paul: Action 175 is done. Chris to mark it done.
Umit: Element id doc: what is the schedule. Are we going to publish?
Paul: What do we need to do
before the F2F so that we have enough for the F2F. I have the
smae question as Umit
... Dialog about the form of the iidentifiers (inout etc.)
... Chris 4045, prefers doc to allign with attachment spec.
Paul: Action 174, David has action there. Issue from Fabian.
Fabian: We did not discuss
Paul: David, can you give us a summary on item b. WG questions. Do we need to make changes to doc subject to dialog with WSDL wg
David: We should
... Can't show where we should make changes
Paul: Give us context.
... We had general questions to the WSDL WG. Operative question: do we need to make changes as a result of dialog?
David: Small changes, no use in
... On 4127 Fabian's note. Discuss this first.
Paul: Pending possible change to syntax.
Paul looks up the syntax.
Paul goes over the example.
David: Yes we should change them.
Use Input Output instead of In Out
Paul: David explain overlap.
David: Fabian please introduce yours first.
Fabian: Fabian explains context.
Fabian explains two options and David sends email that has other options.
fsasaki, do I need to take detailed notes on this? I couldn't understand Fabian very well - line was muffled
David explains the other syntax options.
Paul: Option 1 leave as proposed
<dorchard> Option #2 sample syntax:
<dorchard> <input name="foo"/><input name="bar"/>
<dorchard> wsdl11.portTypeMessageReference(portType/operation/message( messageName))
<dorchard> New option #3: Leave as is and when there is overloading, the first is used.
Option 4: LEave as is and when overloading do nothing
<dorchard> Option #4: Leave as is and when there is overloading, say nothing
Umit explains further option - by avoiding the problem. It is not the smae as option 1
Umit: Mine is a variation on 3.
Paul: David, Fabian can you live with 3?
Fabian: What is the diff between 1 and 4?
David explains the diff
<dorchard> my message in archives is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0065.html
Fabian: Not a fan of option
... Rather see either 1 or 4
<dorchard> you get the first operation.
<dorchard> wsdl11.portTypeMessageReference(portType/operation/message( messageName))
David explains a further variation on 2 suggested by Fabian. (see above)
<Zakim> umit, you wanted to ask a question on 7 and to
Paul: not enough consensus today.
Chris: I'd be in favor with something that is close to Umit's.
David: Element name becomes component attribute
<scribe> ACTION: David O to send an email with clear set of alternatives for issue 4127 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/10-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-187 - O to send an email with clear set of alternatives for issue 4127 [on dorchardrchard - due 2007-01-17].
Paul: going back to item b
... Can you raise an issue on that?
David: Ashok has already raised that issue.
Paul: Rasied it with the WSDL WG but we have no bugzilla item.
<abbie> I need exact dates for the March F2F please
<maryann> a bug against what document?
Paul: Create the bug for that so we can track why we did it.
<dorchard> the "double put", putting "put" at the end :-)
<scribe> ACTION: dorchard to create a bug to track this item [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/10-ws-policy-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-188 - Create a bug to track this item [on David Orchard - due 2007-01-17].
<paulc> Can we make this Action more specific (change in,out ->input, output in fragment syntax
paulc, I realized that after I typed it. I will fix it
<dorchard> WSDL 1.1 element names or attributes not used for MessageReference.
Action item is updated.
Paul: David has action 173.
... WG should have looked at David's proposals/options for the F2F
... No objections.
Paul: Action 178, we discussed earlier
Ashok: Only thing is that there is two places we require references. 1 where there aren't any, and later on where the spec talks about the URI element. ref to WSDL 2.0 and add WSDL 1.1
<paulc> Proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0003.html
<paulc> Issue 4128
Paul: Proposal on table is as
orginally proposed in
... Did editors catch it?
Ashok: I think so.
Asir: Only ref to 1.1 is needed
<paulc> WSDL 2.0 component syntax reference is there.
<paulc> proposal is to just add the pointer to our TBD Note on WSDL 1.1 Element Identifiers
Paul: No objections
<asir> related editors action from last week - http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/111
<scribe> Done it last time I scribed but I forgot.
<cferris>RESOLUTION: Issue 4128 closed by adding reference to WSDL1.1 Identifiers draft as proposed by Ashok in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4128
Ashok: Needs to be fixed up by
speaking about epr equallity algorithm
... Need some feedback from WG
Askok's comments above relate to this topic. (Mistake with topic previously)
Asir: An easy way to approach would be like 3619. This would be the best way to move forward.
Ashok: When we closed we agreed
to keep this example in.
... Should we leave example in as is?
Paul: Just followed the link. We considered 3 alternatives.
Paul goes over the alternatives mentioned in the link
Paul: What new data have you?
Ashok: I talked to two people in WG and they thought the example is not right.
Ashok: If WG says we need to do nothing I'm fine with that
Paul: No evidence that the WG needs to revisit this.
Chris: One minor point: We recognzed it uses a EPR that does not exist. We would clean it up after the fact. We need to open a bug and fix it.
Umit: Are we looking at the queue?
Looking over the 9 line example from the link
<paulc> Chris: <wsa:EndpointReference> is a type and is used incorrectly.
<asir> global element decl is at http://www.w3.org/2006/03/addressing/ws-addr.xsd
<GlenD> lookit that.
<GlenD> there sure is.
Chris is looking at example
Chris: I stand corrected
Paul: I believe we can resolove this. No need to worry about action 179
Umit: Should leave exmaple as is
Fabian: 3620. Was interested in what Ashok had in mind.
Paul: can you live with the original decision?
Fabian: can live with the original decision. Just thought that Ashok had new issue and want to encourage him.
Paul: Read 4129 - no new
... Suggest can resolve easily 4129
Monica: Hard to determine that there is no new evidence
RESOLUTION: Issue 4129 closed based on previous decision on 3619 and no new evidence has been recognized.
Ashok: Have assertion even if you are not able to understand it.
<cferris> ashok's lengthy note
Ashok has a different use case.
<paulc> and not me - I was talking.
Ashok: Just for advertizing or
information. Thought we needed another attrib caleld
... Sergey has a different understanding
Ashok would like Sergey to explain better.
Tom: Don't think we need new attribute for informational. I'd rather not muck with ignorable
Asir: Ashok won't be at F2F so we
need to make progess
... Best way to deal with this is look for new evidence
Chris takes his hat off
Chris: I don't see a use case for
a ignorable assertion that must be ignored
... Seems you are trying to address the proprietary attrib
Chris: Consumer has option of acting or ignoring
Chris: What was wrong with what
... Recommend we close with no action
Chris puts his hat back on
Glen: I agree with Chris. I'd like to be able to get to a point where Ashok gets the distinction.
<cferris> here is the email that relates my hat off response to this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0049.html
Glen: Could use a local attribute
or could point to important things that you wouldn't put in
... Recommend we close with no action. But would really like to make sure that we have Ashok online.
Umit: Ashok, sorry we didn't talk
... I think that your use case can be handled with what we have today.
... Any config info that you choose to expose can be covered by the ignorable assertion
Monica: If you read the discussions it seems we need to put something in the primer or guidelines
<TRutt_> +1 to close with no action
<umit> +1 close with no action. It was my point.
<asir> +1 to close with no action
Paul: How should we handle 4130?
<asir> that is 4041
<asir> we have a separate issue on this topic
Ashok: If I'm the only one then we can close it. But we should heed Monica and put some usage information in the primer or guidelines
Paul: Can we have an action item?
Monica: didn't we have an action item? (4041)
<umit> can't we just see 4041 first?
Paul: What I'm hearing is we can resolve 4130
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4130 closed with no action. Primer section on wsp:Ignorable should cover use cases and give guidance to policy authors
Paul: I'll draft a F2F agenda tonight
Chris will put the timing in
Monica: Can david make sure there is a map?
Paul: Address on the logistics
... Webmethods offered to host March F2F