See also: IRC log
<fsasaki> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-policy/2007Jul/0015.html
<monica> test
nick: scribe
<scribe> scribenick: dorchard
<cferris> scribe: DaveO
<Fabian> scribe: dorchard
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4851 closed with proposed changes in issue, editors to update accordingly
<pbc> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3988
<pbc> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4663
<abbie> +abbie barbir
<fsasaki> see bottom of http://www.w3.org/2007/07/17-ws-policy-minutes.html for paulc questions
Tom: I worked on the summary of ws-a/wsr-m policy issues
"forensic standards"
WS-CSI
Tom: seems like 10 pages of dense material that wouldn't be worthwhile to do.
Lots of discussion about who would own doing the "case study" material.
Paul: Need to be very careful about what we add on to our plate, our charter expires in December and we have lots still to do.
<pbc> We need to get the Primer and Guidelines done before our charter expires.
Chris: Proposal is to remove section 8.
asir: section 8 isn't useful
PaulC: another proposal is replace section 8 with addressing material.
Maryann: may as well delete section 8 without WS-Addressing lessons learned.
Tom: complicated usages require complicated policy assertions
PaulC: you can make the analysis of ws-a experience separate and could even say that guidelines has enough or is missing.
felix: a section on the home page on tutorials, and link to a new tutorial.
XML page used to have many many different links and documents until there were too many.
Maryann: Supporting material, like presentations, are important
paul: nobody disagrees, but the WG doesn't
write presentations, books, etc.
... others do that and we can link to that.
<pbc> http://www.w3.org/XML/Query/
Felix: We can just link to external publications without endorsing.
Maryann: this is fine
Chris: keep section 8
... or not?
paulc: Let's seed the page
asir: I can contribute a preso
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issues 3988 and 4663 closed by removing g/l section 8 and taking no further action on the g/l, but starting a section on the public wg homepage where we can host links to various un-endorsed resources that may be of use/interest to assertion and policy expression authors
maryann: and how about the workshop preso
<pbc> Issue 3978: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3978
discussion on 3978
Maryann talks about her omnibus proposal
asir: aware of the complicated history
... Section 7 Applying Best Practices for Policy Attachment was deleted as
part of 3978.
Chris: anybody disagree with removing section 7 of current document
maryann: Best Practices for Policy Attachment becomes a new 5.7.1..
ashok: Did you add stuff like attaching policy using UDDI?
maryann: I didn't have any, but anybody else
could contribute material.
... the guidelines suggest re-using existing attachment mechanisms...
<cferris> ACTION: Ashok to follow-up on whether there is content related to uddi attachment that would be of value for the document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/18-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-335 - Follow-up on whether there is content related to uddi attachment that would be of value for the document [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2007-07-25].
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 3978 closed by removing current g/l section 7
<cferris> rrsagemt, where am i>
<cferris> rrsagent., where am i?
<pbc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jul/0030.html
<pbc> Issue 4654: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4654
maryann goes through her proposal.
discussion about where to have generic/wsdl specific best practices
scribe: scribe having trouble scribing...
Maryann: will need multiple passes through the material.
asir: what are difference between bp 21 and 22
21: use the attachments defined
... use the subjects defined
maryann: good to have a section on attachments, without spreading throughout.
frederick: support maryann's point
paul: original generic section used wsdl as
examples, now is the new generic section "correct"
... I recommend adopting maryann's material, and take an action to see
whether wsdl section 5.7.2 can be made more specific or assign to
editors..
asir: proposal on the table isn't what you explained, it's a strawman and not ready for guidelines.
chris: issue has been brewing, and diffed, and taken a long time.
Asir: this is new material, hasn't been brewing..
chris: anybody disagree to having section 5.7 refactored into general principles and practices related to attachment, followed by sections related to wsdl?
wg agrees
chris: proposal, 3rd or 4th actually, to start that as 5.7.
asir: totally new material, have to review
... doesn't fit in guidelines as described
paul: having adopted 5.7.1, we'll have to figure out wsdl section.
dave: would like to adopt material as is so we have a stable guidelines doc and we avoid the 4661/4662 "problem"
many in wg agree
paul: at f2f, reasonable spend time to look through the resolution to check on specific issues
paulc: first question: impact on 5.7.2(new wsdl ) of 5.7.1(new general).
chris: anybody opposed to adopting new 5.7.1 material?
<abbie> No opposition from my end
<fsasaki> +1
<notlrahc> +1
sergey: does 5.7.1 need to be split for wsdl 1.1 and wsdl 2.0?
<asir> Q3: use consistent terminology in the proposal for the new section 5.7.1 ...
<pbc> Possible additional work:
<pbc> 1. How to make existing WSDL section more specific to just WSDL
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 4654 closed by adopting maryann's section 5.7.1 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jul/0030.html
<pbc> 2. Determine which existing BP in existing WSDL section should be made generic
<pbc> 3. Determine if the WSDL section should handle WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 separately
<pbc> 4. Determine if attachment terminology is used consistently in new General Guidelines section and the existing WSDL section
<charlton> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jul/0030.html (pdf)
<charlton> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jul/0024.html (doc)
<pbc> 5. Determine if any other specific sections are required for other attachment possibilities like UDDI
<pbc> 6. Can the BP in the WSDL section (or new section) be linked back to the generic versions in the General Guidelines section?
chris: very tough to recover state on where we
are on the docs.
... tough to keep these all aligned
paulc: that's not the case in this case...
... if the first proposal had been complete, then it would have been adopted
faster.
<pbc> Note that Q5 above is AI-335 on Ashok
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4861
about section 5.6 in guidelines
Chris: goes through his proposal and rationale.
dorchard: want to keep the gist of BP 17, which says when to use wsp:Optional
maryann: but problem is that primer and guidelines aren't exactly right for when to use compact authoring.
paulc: option #1: keep the compact authoring as
an example in guidelines but not a bp
... option #2: use the primer document..
dorchard: can live with option #1
<cferris> ACTION: Chris to revise proposal to include example with full normal and compact authoring form [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/18-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-336 - Revise proposal to include example with full normal and compact authoring form [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-07-25].
as well 4660, 4664
<cferris> RESOLUTION: close 4375 with no further action
maryann: let's just look at section 2 for 4662
paulc: bp #30 is new
asir: #1 is also new
<fsasaki> diff is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0033.html
chris: we are going to go through list of existing
dorchard: prefer shorter phrase, ie "start with simple" rather than "Assertion authors should start with simple".
group: #8, #9 remove "assertion authors
should"
... #10 needs rewording
... in general, a terse statement. Not necessarily verb first.
chris: propose for #10, avoid assertions that attribute message semantics
wordsmithing: define message format
... define message format only
then in text, say no no no no to semantics
#1: good
#2: "make behaviours relevant to compatibility tests"...
chrisf "define assertions relevent to compatibility tests"
#2: Define assertions relevent to compatibilty tests
#3: as-is
#2: Define assertions relevant to compatibility tests
#4: as-is
#5: as-is
#6: open issue
#7: as-is
#8: see above
#9: document use of the ignorable attribute
#10: define message format only
#11: as-is\
#12: as-is
#13: as-is
#14: as-is
#15: as-is
#16: Allow use of wsp:Optional
#17 may go away, part 4861
#18 also related to 4861
#19 also related 4861
#20 also related to 4861
#21: as-is
#22: as-is
#23: n/a, no change now
#24: Specify Preferred Attachment Point
#25: Semantics of Multiple Instances of Same Type
#25: as-is
#26: as-is
#27: Independent Assertions for Different Versions of a Behavior
#28: document changes to policy subject
paulc: don't want to lose the question about
whether we are talking just about assertion authors or also assertion
"users"
... bp on how to write an individual assertion, and bp about non specific
assertion things that an assertion author should do.
<cferris> best practives for assertion authors and best practices for assertions
and no best practices for policy expression authors
<cferris> ACTION: Maryann to draft proposal to provide list of BPs that relate to assertion authors specifically [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/18-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-337 - Draft proposal to provide list of BPs that relate to assertion authors specifically [on Maryann Hondo - due 2007-07-25].
audiences are: assertion authors, assertions, policy expression authors
I give up.
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 4660 closed with IRC documented changes to the BPs above
section 5.4.2
maryann: basically one sentence
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0077.html
dorchard: asir is right, it's not <policy/>, it's <(policy expression)/>
cferris: , it's actually <(policy expression)><policy/></(policy expression)>
<cferris> no, <assertion><policy/></assertion>
<cferris> the semantics of an assertion that contains an empty policy expression in its nested policy
<cferris> the semantics of an assertion that contains an empty nested policy expression
<cferris> the semantics of an assertion when it contains an empty nested policy expression
<monica> link is http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Policy_Intersection
<asir> am confused
much discussion about instances vs assertions vs assertion types
assertions are instances of an assertion type
<cferris> In particular, when assertion authors define an assertion type that allows nested policy expression, it is important to also define the semantics of that assertion when it contains an empty nested policy expression (for example, one of these: <Assertion><wsp:Policy/></wsam:Addressing>).
monica: raised comments on maryann's long ago proposal, but overtaken by events
cferris: we'll close 4664 with just that one change, and monica will re-examine her comments to see what may still be applicable
<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4664 closed with the agreed upon text added as a new 3rd sentence in section 5.4.2 " In particular, when assertion authors define an assertion type that allows nested policy expression, it is important to also define the semantics of that assertion when it contains an empty nested policy expression (for example: <wsam:Addressing><wsp:Policy/></wsam:Addressing>)."
<fsasaki> back from lunch
<dmoberg> scribe: dmoberg
chris: Policy Negotiation was one area.
... EPR attachment was a second
... 3622 All bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk RESO WONT Policy assertion equivalence and
generality
Wind ashok.malhotra@oracle.com RESO WONT Which policy alternative was selected?
4178 nor P2 All fabian.ritzmann@sun.com RESO WONT Declaration of policy domains in policy expressions (domains)
4179 nor P2 All fabian.ritzmann@sun.com RESO WONT Preferences for policy expressions
4292 nor P2 Wind fsasaki@w3.org RESO WONT Intersection mode is neither defaulted nor specified
4558 nor P2 Wind orchard@pacificspirit.com RESO FIXE Scalability and performance problems with expressing allo...
cferris: Not intending a deep dive on any of
these suggestions....
... David Orchard explored a wild carding like idea.
... These items were either out of scope or deferred
... Policy exchange for example was explicitly out of scope
... Promised discussion was deferred until chartered work completed.
... Now main deliverables are well underway.
... Primer, Guidelines remain
... Publish these last 2 as last call but with intent to be Notes
... Realistically around November we can ask what more if any is to be
done
paulc: draft charter on ws core maintenance is
available
... intent of a single working group called "Web Services Core"
... comments on an analogy with another "core" group
... However, WSDL completed and promptly disbanded
... A bit unusual because normally a bit of time allowed for maintenance
... relevance is that the core charter includes maintenance for other WS
activity groups
... XMLP, WSDL, CDL, Policy mentioned in charter as to be maintained in Core
(scribe upshot)
... original Policy charter mentioned a final possible action of proposing a
new charter for w3c consideration
... the resulting group would be a new group with a new charter
... of course, any member companies could send in a proposed new charter as
well
<FrederickHirsch> +
paulc: so we have several options: maintained by core, disband, new charter
<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#correction-classes
<cferris> 1. finish rec and primer/gl and call it quits
paulc: clarifies that a newly chartered group
would/could do maintenance
... this discussion on 3rd option on new charter
<fsasaki> link above shows what changes are "maintenance"
monica: would that core group then cover all these specs?
paulc: product group at MS might have
responsiblity for several and so have an interest and expertise
... observation does point out that individuals might have more specialized
interest and expertise
... and that poses limitations on core group effectiveness
cferris: but apparently no restriction on numbers on a committee
paulc: core solution has its own limitations
dorchard: BEA is ambivalent about new feature
addition.
... but there may be conditons that would change
tom: negotiation of interest
charlton: adobe is interested in more advanced
features.
... follow on group of interest
monica: Sun has mentioned a couple of issues. Uncertain about which direction that is to be taken and wants to leave a record for future work.
Axway has some interest in preference, but wants to wait on market feedback befoer bit commit on resources
sergeyB: open source of import, optional and
ignorable features -- need input from users of functionality
... metadata exchange might be important for negotiation
asir: core group seems good choice for
maintenance issue
... changes from 1.2 to 1.5 are fairly minimal. field experience is needed to
produce new features and MS does not have any new features at this time
... Need to look at big picture (on WS?) before diving into NG of Polciy
ashok: We have user requests for enhancements.
For example, gold /silver regular user scenarios
... Probably should wait a bit before deciding (6 months) on new features.
frederickhirsch: 1. can new work be done while core gets the maintenance?
paulc: what a great way to handle maintenance -- "bait and switch"
frederickhirsch: would w3c be willing to support both core and a new policy, in particular?
cferris: "them is us" -- how this works out will be thrashed out within w3c organization and procedures...
frederickhirsch: procedural deadlocks?
various co chairs: don't think so
<fsasaki> agree
felix: also does not think there is roadblock
paulc: core (only maintenance) and so may have IP implications (not lawyer disclaimer)
frederickHirsch: 2. would it be worth going through the issues as a review
paulc: but perhaps this sample not
representative
... requirements document, that might itself be a charter task for a group
monica: Other docs have information relevant to frederick's review
Felix: Also Semantic Web might be relevant to future work on Policy
maryann: other things might be relevant to future directions in policy
cferris: IBM finds a number of features in
v.next of interest, but wants field experience. However, starting work on
policy would itself take time.
... there will be some point at which the issue needs revisiting. No
immediate urgency though
fsasaki: note incubator has a bit of staff support though
process doc. provides incubator description
<fsasaki> interest group is an alternative form with (a bit) staff support
paulc: always need to factor in how policy compares with the other things on the stack of "to dos"
<TomR> Every person in this room probably has a different idea of what �policy negotiation� entails. I see all the following as subpoints of the topic of policy negotiation: �discovery of endpoint policy�; �client assertion of desired policy for a service�; �intersection of client and server policy expressions to arrive at possible alternatives for communication �sessions�; selecting among compatible policy alternatives to use on a particular communication �session� o
tomr: see explanation of negot: before we proceed, we need to clarify requirements
<TomR> or �context� between two endpoints; and attaching preferences or priorities to policy alternatives. It would be important to characterize an agreed set of requirements on �policy negotiation� before charging forward on a solution which meets nobody�s full set of needs.
dorchard: waterfall approach is nice, but
current approach is jump started by submissions
... my guess is that a submission will arrive and then a charter will
follow
paulc: wikipedia fan, and wondered whether a wikipedia might be a formative mechanism for exploring Tom's idea that there are many views on the topic of negotiation and its components.
maryann: community building is a part of this process
cferris: starting an interest group mgiht be a way to broaden and see about future directions
fsasaki: interest group is mainly just a mailing list...
paulc: mathML and DOM were interest groups at
some point and eventually surfaced as WGs
... shorter focused Incubator interest group seemed to be more effective
asir: What happens to mailing list after WG disbands
fsasaki: would need a separate mailing list, more for incubating...
cferris: have I heard correctly? no one sees intense urgency in initiating new work. consensus is that experience would benefit focus and market feedback would help on features.
tomr: everything mentioned would be of importance to my company...
cferris: six to nine months, with more informal
mechanisms for explorations
... no burning "must do" tasks for this group's continuation directly
following on our completion
dorchard: 1.5 years for CR negotiation draft? with wiki, mailing list simmering, it will be off in the tuture 2 or more
cferris: 15 minutes for break
frederickhirsch: notes now removed. and 2nd point, notes info tracked
<asir> editors' notes went through the chute :-)
cferris: Contends that in some sense all the
assertions are optional (from end user pov )
... throat care
<Fabian> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jul/0038.html
cferris: thanks Fabian
... reviews large passages in proposal
... also mentions the "asymmetrical" (one-sided) aspect to policy assertion
design
... replace all of 5.6 by referenced text
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jul/0038.html
editors: discuss text structuring
maryann: replace current by Cferris and then move to new places
dorchard: 5.6.1 ok, but on 5.6.2 leave in until Cferris does his action
cferris: 5.6.2 gets editor's note deprecation
editors: agreed
asir: foo:bar to be replaced with "real
values"
paulc: publish with health warning, ok?
consensus seems to be yes if agreed, it could be published in that fashion
cferris and dorchard: wsp:optional can be allowed by several schema mechanisms
asir: dorchard implements this ed. actiion.
dorchard: yes
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 4861 closed with proposal from Chris in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jul/0038.html replacing the last paragraph with the folloowing:
<cferris> If the assertion author had not provided for the wsp:Optional attribute to
<cferris> be included on the assertion, then policy expression authors would be forced to express the optionality of a behavior as two explicit policy alternatives, one with and one without that assertion when including assertions of that type in their policies.
<cferris> and replacing the foo:Bar assertion with a real assertion such as wsrmp:RMAssertion
<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0095.html
<monica> email sent http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0069.html. mah opened separate issues. wg separated their comments according to in-flight documents.
<monica> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0069.html
monica: places links into irc
Monica: Textual editorial suggestions that can be allocated to the editors for their advisement.
asir: is this just editorial?
discussion: upper case?
monica: now these edits have moved around and possibly in some cases been changed.
<cferris> starting from Monica's propsed edits in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/att-0069/Web_Services_PolicyGuidelines-strawman-diff-editorial-comment.pdf
<cferris> disregard the changes in the first section
<cferris> 2. accept change to add "qualifying" in section 5.4
<cferris> 3. 5.4.1 s/normalize/normalization/
<cferris> 4. 5.4.2 s/might/could/
<cferris> 5. disregard other changes as they modify proposed changes that were not accepted
<cferris> restated:
<cferris> 1. 04 01disregard the changes in the first section
<cferris> 2. accept change to add "qualifying" in section 5.4
<cferris> 3. 5.4.1 s/normalize/normalization/
<cferris> 4. disregard other changes as they modify proposed changes that were not accepted
cferris: misc. profanities over misbehavin mouse
<cferris> 5. comment 2 in the bug no action
<cferris> 6. replace 5.4 with the following:
<cferris> There are two different ways to provide additional information in an assertion beyond its type: assertion parameters and nested policy expressions. We cover these two cases below followed by a comparison of these approaches targeting when to use either of the two approaches.
<cferris> The main consideration for choosing between use of parameters or nested policy expressions is that the framework intersection algorithm processes nested policy expressions, but does not consider parameters in the algorithm.
<cferris> ... and remove the paragraph starting with "The main consideration" from later in section 5.4.2
<cferris> 7. s/ useful (or additional)/useful additive/ in BP 12
monica: that is all.
<asir> Monica, Frederick is on point for implementing 4695
<cferris> RESOLUTION: close issue 4695 with the above 7 changes
<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4862
cferris: Issue is where is XML Outline defined, if anywhere.
pcotton: Found 3 examples of use of XML outline, and 3 sections summarizing syntax
<Fabian> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jul/0033.html
pcotton: responded to other remarks about using
w3c spec.
... add to guidelines document that it is a syntax shorthand, and reference
some examples
dorchard: many names for this shorthand, like BNF shorthand...
pcotton: propose that we just point to this style in standards
cferris: we do provide example. best practice 6 has cut and paste from RM
asir: notes that sec policy example is on
chopping block
... check 5.3.2
pcotton: " ... example given below ..." and a sentence " ... and syntax is explained in ...."
dorchard: Oasis specs referenced?
wsdl 2.0 has bnf pseudo schema
pcotton: nothing wrong with referencing Oasis specs
dorchard: W3c should make this standardized.
pcotton: Guidelines not a spec,
... sure, reference w3c specs as long as they are about policy...
... and as far as w3c standardization, sounds like great tech plenary
topic
... ref to wsdl 2.0 not needed
ashok: supports wsdl as having a def that is usable
dorchard: how about, wsdl 2.0 and other pointers to Oasis spec.
pcotton: also mentions that all that is needed is a best practice style and not a definitive spec with a normative ref (this is not a norm doc.)
fsasaki: Cohere with w3c is a different goal than coherence with existing user community, so using exisitng outlines are useful
<Zakim> dorchard, you wanted to point out that there's a difference between describing in XML vs using XML Outline witout a definition of XML Outline.
asir: missed point please supply
<cferris> asir: pointing out that the BNF outline in wsdl2.0 does not include the wildcard mechanism we use in a couple of the assertion dialects
pcotton: points to 2 sections in RM and where example come froms and where outline is defined.
<PaulC> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrmp/200702/wsrmp-1.1-spec-os-01.pdf
cferris: Dislikes outline, has gaps, and is
opaque. With rant concluded, xsd, rng, or outline is ok. Popularity of
outline plays up to the schema challenged perhaps.
... Like to see emphasis on there being a "schema" with possibly placing xsd
higher up and assigning outline to a lesser, derivative status.
<TomR> +1 to having xml:schema for the preferred normative definition
pcotton: why not change order of phrases so xsd first? and outline as a readable alternative for documentation
dorchard: expresses fondness for outine despite its informal and incomplete state
cferris: is notepad version ok?
universal assent
<cferris> Best Practice 6: Provide an XML definition
<cferris> Assertion authors should provide an XML schema [XML Schema] definition to specify the syntax of an assertion. A reader-friendly description such as an XML outline (see below) is also useful.
<cferris> An example of a specification that provides an XML Outline is the Web Services Reliable Messaging Policy document [Web Services Reliable Messaging Policy]. The definition of the outline syntax used in that specification is found in its Terminology section (1.1). As an example of the outline syntax in use, the following outline has been copied from the aforementioned specification.
<cferris> <example>
<cferris> RESOLUTION: close issue 4862 with the above text replacing BP 6 and its rationale with the text above
pcotton: Issue 4857 remains
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4857
<PaulC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jul/0028.html
<cferris> 1. section 2.9 changes accepted
<cferris> for primer section 3.3, find and replace with the following:
<cferris> Primer 3.3
<cferris> A nested policy expression is a policy expression that is a child element of an assertion. In the normal form, a nested policy expression has at most one policy alternative. The policy alternative in a nested policy expression represents a collection of associated or dependent behaviors, requirements or conditions that qualify its parent policy assertion.
<monica> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0022.html
Discussion of compatibility checking when nested policy alternatives are involved.
<asir> Chris statement is a good evidence of my point
cferris: the text does not seem to explain the points of interest
asir: points are technically correct but hard to explain
pcotton: suggests using the example to do the heavy lifting and just summarize. what example shows
asir: can reuse the examples to make points
... fix "tje" in primer
cferris: in need of an example to illustrate nested policy compatibility and incompatibility
asir: has example in 4.5 of framework
pcotton: propose to Monica to work on example for this final point, accepting the other parts
<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 4857 resolved with proposal in 10 01http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jul/att-0028/nested-policy-expression-update-mm1-primer-071607.pdf
<cferris> proposal for changes to 2.9 accepted
<cferris> all other changes not accepted
<cferris> also, find and replace the relevant text in section 3.3 with the following:
<cferris> A nested policy expression is a policy expression that is a child element of an assertion. In the normal form, a nested policy expression has at most one policy alternative. The policy alternative in a nested policy expression represents a collection of associated or dependent behaviors, requirements or conditions that qualify its parent policy assertion.
<cferris> rrsagent, where am i?
pcotton: Disposition of Primer and Guidelines.
My take, not fully baked, but close
... Action items still remain to be assigned. Ashok took one. But 5 remain
... Monica will have 1 AI on Primer
<cferris> ACTION: Monica to review section 3.4 and propose changes to example alternatives that would permit an explanation of the compatibility matching at the nested policy level [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/07/18-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-338 - Review section 3.4 and propose changes to example alternatives that would permit an explanation of the compatibility matching at the nested policy level [on Monica Martin - due 2007-07-25].
How to finish?
pcotton: proposed that we take them through
last call.
... So on Aug 1 we decide whether to publish.
to last call
No meeting July 25, or Aug 8 and probably not Aug 15
Aug 22 will have meeting to discuss PR comments
Proposed no meeting Aug 29 Sept 5 and meet on the 12th
where we discuss last call on Primer and Guidelines
So enter into last call in Sept...
In October we would have lc comments.
Little likelihood of another face to face
pcotton: How does that sound?
asir: Do we need to have a review on G and P?
cferris: Announces to community that we think
its baked
... May get some good suggestions?
pcotton: Outcomes: file comments, we accept. Or not. Or we get no comments. Then we can use this as making the notes worth preserving.
fsasaki: Unlike Rec track, reaching agreement with commentor not required.
asir: Fixing more useful than doing last call.
pcotton: Thanks to IONA for hosting
cferris: Thanks you all
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/relevent/relevant/ Succeeded: s/Assertion/wsam:Addressing/ Succeeded: s/cferris/chris/ Succeeded: s/has no/ has a bit of/ Succeeded: s/Cohere with w3c and user community/Cohere with w3c is a different goal than coherence with existing user community/ Succeeded: s/he was/asir: / Succeeded: s/responses to comments/reaching agreement with commentor/ Found ScribeNick: dorchard Found Scribe: DaveO Found Scribe: dorchard Inferring ScribeNick: dorchard Found Scribe: dmoberg Inferring ScribeNick: dmoberg Scribes: DaveO, dorchard, dmoberg ScribeNicks: dorchard, dmoberg Default Present: Iona, Abbie_Barbir Present: Iona Abbie_Barbir Paul Chris Asir Tom Charlton Frederick Felix Ashok Fabian Monica Dale Sergey Maryann Arnaud DaveO Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-policy/2007Jul/0007.html Got date from IRC log name: 18 Jul 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/07/18-ws-policy-minutes.html People with action items: ashok chris maryann monica WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]