See also: IRC log
<PaulC> Good morning Chris.
agenda item 2: f2f minutes
Chris: attendance tracker was updatedF2F minutes adopted unanimously
<cferris> RESOLUTION: minutes from F2F adopted unanimously
Paul: proposed agenda for future
... cancel July 4 meeting and week after F2F meetings
<fsasaki> ACTION: Felix to update the meeting schedule at the admin HP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-210 - Update the meeting schedule at the admin HP [on Felix Sasaki - due 2007-02-07].
Felix: has info from Nortel for F2F
Paul: William should provide information for F2F earlier than usual
agenda item 4: editorial team report
Asir is reporting
Asir: delivered CR draft Jan 21
didn't delivered primer and guidelines
Paul: CR decision next week
Umit: please add me to roll
<toufic> chris, me too please when you get a chance
<fsasaki> published at http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl11elementidentifiers/
Paul: Felix had action to publish WSDL 1.1 element id doc
Felix: document is on TR page
<asir> For the minutes, Candidate CR Drafts are at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0209.html
Paul: issues that were worked on
are linked from page
... asks Felix to send note to WSDL WG that WSDL element id doc was published, Chris will do that
Paul: no other items
Umit: Re minutes approval: F2F minutes have small
... one resolution pointed to wrong message
Paul: Umit to send email with correction
<scribe> ACTION: 183 to moved to next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
action 189 moved to end of Feb
action 190 done
Maryann: on action 192 will send
... working on proposal for action 193
<Ashok> On action 193 -- Monica, Fabian and Maryann and I are still discussing
<Ashok> Will try for next week
Paul: ask Maryann to update action 193 with issue number
<monica> It may be Issue 4236.
Asir: have related editorial action for 194
<FrederickH> Action 196 - See proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0215.html
Umit: Addressed the issue in guidelines in current editor's draft
<monica> It is so: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4236
Frederick: sent proposal for action 196 yesterday
Asir: 4195 fulfills action 196
Paul: action 197 done
... action 199 done during F2F
... 201 duplicate of 200
Sergey: Proposal for 201
... deliver next week
Chris: action 202 pending
Felix: action 203 until Feb 7
Chris: action 204 Feb 7
Paul: don't know context on action 205, will leave it today
Asir: action 205 is done, issue 4270
Frederick: do action 206 until Feb 7
Asir: you did it
Paul: action 207 done by Felix
Paul: action 208 done
... action 209 pending
Paul: SAWSDL confirmed OK with our resolution
Paul: Asir provided scenarios
Maryann: revised interop scenarios for next call
Paul: will ping glen for date on action 209
<cferris> prasad clarifies that he had volunteered to do the first 2 uddi test cases, not the whole shebang
<scribe> ACTION: Prasad to create test cases for features 37 and 38 on UDDI [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-211 - Do features 37 and 38 on UDDI [on Prasad Yendluri - due 2007-02-07].
<toufic> mark can be added later, no?
<scribe> ACTION: Prasad and Mark to determine the UDDI scenarios they can cover [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-212 - And Mark to determine the UDDI scenarios they can cover [on Prasad Yendluri - due 2007-02-07].
Prasad: is this about providing the entire test data also?
Paul: put your questions on the
... who volunteers to suggest negative test cases
... no volunteers, pending
<asir> or break existing policy expressions in the scenarios archive
Paul: remaining significant pieces of work - features 22 and 23 for WSDL 2.0 with external attachments. Any volunteers?
<scribe> ACTION: Chris to find an owner for feature 22 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-213 - Find an owner for feature 22 [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-02-07].
<scribe> ACTION: PCotton2 to ask Ashok if he takes on feature 23 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-214 - Ask Ashok if he takes on feature 23 [on Paul Cotton - due 2007-02-07].
Paul: neither Ashok nor DavidO are present
<Ashok> I'm on another call ...
Chris: important to have dave and Ashok
Paul: Is IBM ready to process this item?
Maryann: no opinion how to resolve 4251
<scribe> ACTION: Maryann to find out how is answering 4251 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-215 - Find out who is answering 4251 [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-02-07].
Paul: action 183 is pending
... next issue 4263
<FrederickH> proposal is ""Domain specific processing should be made aware of whether assertions it is
<FrederickH> processing were marked as ignorable since that may impact domain specific
Asir: current thread in WG under message id 216
<PaulC> Issue 4263: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4263
Frederick: proposed revised
... why would one not want to know in domain-specific processing why ignorable processing is not necessary?
Asir: ignorable is captured in data model, anything that is in assertion is visible to domain processor, not clear what additional information should be made available
Frederick: Asir says that
information would be available to domain processor
... Does that mean my text is correct?
Asir: don't understand what it is trying to say
<FrederickH> revised proposal - "Domain specific processing is aware of ignorable properties.
Glen: not sure we have a need for this
Paul: reminds Glen he has an action item for mime type processing
Umit: not about ignorable but
data model and all attributes and components available to
... useful addition to spec
<FrederickH> +1 to umit, all aspects of model available to domain specific processing
Glen: agree with Umit
... obvious that data model available to any kind of processing in policy world
... don't want to imply particular implementation model
... text needs careful crafting
Paul: you don't agree with proposal?
Glen: Yes, I don't agree.
... suggest "domain-specific processing is free to use any information from policy data model"
Paul: Asks location in primer
Frederick: originally had target location in intersection, but might not be correct now
Asir: section 3.4
Paul: spelling mistake, "tje" in
... should we take this to email?
... domain-specific processing *could* take advantage of the information that the assertion is marked ignorable
Frederick: will revise proposal
next: primer versioning issue 4270
Paul: DavidO lying on the beach for several weeks
<PaulC> Issue 4270: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4270
Paul: Contoso used in proposal
Asir: one reply to thread
<fsasaki> reply from Asir at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0220.html
Asir: at F2F talked about concerns, David addressed technical issue, missed other
Paul: are we OK with proposal 4270 and amendments in message 220
Chris: put hypothetical for all occurrences of EOL assertion
Paul: no additional comments
resolution: 4270 with message 220 and similar changes to rest of document adopted
next issue 4255
mistake, issue 4212/4213
Umit: Was request that security
... was about utilization of empty
<PaulC> Issue 4212: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4212
Paul: Tony should look at 4212
Paul: related issue 4142
Umit: 4142 issue was about matching in intersection, removed confusing sentence
<Nadalin> will do
Umit: Action would be to provide explanation in primer or guide
Asir: agree with Umit
<asir> related old thread is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0105.html
<scribe> ACTION: Umit to propose text for primer or guideline for issue 4212 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-216 - Propose text for primer or guideline for issue 4212 [on Umit Yalcinalp - due 2007-02-07].
next issue 4255
Asir: see action 201
Paul: action is pending
<Nadalin> 4122 does not include "null" policies
<scribe> new item on the agenda, issue 4195
Paul: Tony is too late, moving on
... action 196 done by Frederick
<Nadalin> yes 4212
Frederick: additional text on
intersection with lax and strict, whether or not requester can
require what is considered
... concrete proposal for primer, should go over it on next call
<umit> +1 to decide on it at the next call
Paul: putting on next week's agenda
<monica> Issue 4288
Paul: new item issue 4288
Monica: section 2.10 in primer,
inlining of WSDL, comment on absence of assertions, applies to
other than WSDL, move further up in primer document
... we suggest to move into section 2.6, may fit in other places
Monica: original issue was 3602
Monica: suggest to move to 2.6 and minor change in 2.10
Asir: talking about absence of
policy assertions, moving also part about absence of policy
... do you want to move both?
... make distinction clear in primer of absence of assertions vs absence of policy expressions
Maryann: restrictions once you have assertions in vocabulary, do we need to make a comment as well?
Monica: we can consider that
Maryann: offers to help
Monica: I take the offer
<scribe> ACTION: Maryann and Monica to amend issue 4288 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action12]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-217 - And Monica to amend issue 4288 [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-02-07].
<monica> thanks asir and maryann
Paul: issue 3953
Paul: revised proposal in message 90 of Dec
Frederick: rephrase text how to
consider interrelationship between domains
... and rearrange section a little bit
<PaulC> Asir response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0217.html
resolution: resolve 3953 with amendment of Jan 17
<cferris> RESOLUTION: resolve 3953 with amendment proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0090.html
next issue 3987
Asir: versioning covered in
primer, overlap with guidelines
... no text on attachment extensibility
... rephrase title with "versioning policy assertions" and drop other text
Umit: document has changed since
... don't see section in chapter 5 that overlaps anymore
Asir: 5.9 was moved to 5
Umit: all policy language extensibility awareness raised and refers to primer
Asir: change title and still see attachment extensibility
Umit: if assertion changes over time, if additional subject needs to be introduced, wouldn't that be relevant to assertion author?
Asir: last time we discussed adding new subject to attachment mechanisms
Umit: Subject attachment extensibility text missing?
Asir: yes, and last time we talked this was about a different topic
Umit: or extend that particular section
Paul: Umit has no problem with changing title
Umit: guidelines, section 5,
three bullets about lifecycle concerns
... Had no time to expand on third bullet, content why it is important is missing
Maryann: would help to craft meaningful text
Umit: can we propose text to illustrate why third point is important?
<PaulC> about" Subject attachment Extensibility"
<maryann> +1 to Umit
<scribe> ACTION: Umit and Maryann to provide text for subject attachment Extensibility in guidelines [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html#action13]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-218 - And Maryann to provide text for subject attachment Extensibility in guidelines [on Umit Yalcinalp - due 2007-02-07].
<maryann> also I am ok with the title name change
Paul: back up to previous
... Asir proposing to get rid of extensibility point
Asir: comment was on old version, no need anymore
Partial resolution for 3987:
Paul: issue 3987, change title,
no changes to policy language extensibility, and AI for
attachment subject extensibility
... leaving issue open based on AI
<PaulC> We are taking action on the following change:
<PaulC> s/Lifecycle of Assertions/Versioning Policy Assertions/g
<PaulC> Asir withdraws his request to delete bullet two "Policy Language Extensibility"
<PaulC> Asir withdraws his request to delete bullet two "Policy Language Extensibility"
<PaulC> And we have an action to deal with the third item.
next issue 4035
<PaulC> Postponed to next week (Umit and Asir request)
next issue 4072
Dan: summarizing issue 4072
Paul: Fabian's email supports issue and makes additional proposal
Fabian: my proposal was raised as
... nonsense, my proposal was raised as separate issue
Maryann: agree language may not
... suggesting amendment "make sure that semantic assertion is correct for policy scope they are identifying"
Dan: Agree that authors need to decide applicable subjects, that principle is covered elsewhere
Maryann: maybe is covered somewhere else, could we refer to that place?
Dan: statement in section 2
Asir: and 4.7
Maryann: section 4.7 only applies to WSDL
Paul: Asir says text in 4.7 is more generic, does not only apply to WSDL
Dan: other statement in 4.6
... and best practice in 4.6
Maryann: helps in having a
pointer, would we need a more general statement not specific to
... Statement in 4.6 lead-in to 4.7
Umit: original proposal was on
section that explains aspects of policy assertion, tries to
list all relevant points there
... suggest if Dan has problem with prior sentence, can give pointers to 4.6 and 4.7 otherwise
Dan: previous statement can stay
<PaulC> Counter proposal 1:
<PaulC> Counter proposal 1:
<PaulC> Leave the following text:
<PaulC> The number of different subjects to which an assertion can be attached is also a factor when defining an assertion.
<PaulC> And follow it with a pointer to subsequent material.
<cferris> in section 4.7
<PaulC> And remove the next sentence: "Determining the appropriate policy subjects ... dynamically".
<danroth> looks good to me
Umit: OK with cp1
Maryann: ok with cp1
Paul: finds text for other part of proposal
Maryann: don't understand why that part is offensive
Dan: assertion author would not utilize that mechanism
Asir: sounds like a role for application, not assertion author
Paul: reads 5th paragraph
... don't need to say this to authors
Dan: would be primer material
Asir: primer has section
Umit: that paragraph, is anything
technically or morally wrong?
... document also targets providers of policy expressions, section provides that link
... referring to material in section 1
Paul: studying section 1 and his
... not obvious how that target audience will find this material
Chris: Author of complex assertion might want to mint different flavors
Paul: let's continue discussion
... next week deadline for comments on candidate CR draft
... conf in 3rd week of Feb with chair
<PaulC> Partial resolution of 4072:
<cferris> 10[13:47] PaulC: 01Leave the following text:
<cferris> 10[13:47] PaulC: 01The number of different subjects to which an assertion can be attached is also a factor when defining an assertion.
<cferris> 10[13:47] PaulC: 01And follow it with a pointer to subsequent material.
<cferris> 04[13:48] cferris: 01in section 4.7
<cferris> 10[13:48] PaulC: 01And remove the next sentence: "Determining the appropriate policy subjects ... dynamically".
<cferris> RESOLUTION: while this doesn't close 4072, it does represent consensus of the group