15:42:57 RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms 15:42:57 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-soap-jms-irc 15:43:38 Roland has changed the topic to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Jul/0011.html 15:45:13 Zakim, this will be WS_SOAP-JM 15:45:13 ok, Roland; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start in 15 minutes 15:45:53 Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference 15:46:10 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Jul/0011.html 15:46:25 Chair: Roland 15:46:43 rrsagent, make minutes 15:46:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-soap-jms-minutes.html Roland 15:46:55 rrsagent, make log public 15:57:32 peaston has joined #soap-jms 15:57:40 WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has now started 15:57:47 +alewis 15:57:59 alewis has joined #soap-jms 15:59:06 +Roland 15:59:09 -alewis 15:59:11 +alewis 16:00:14 + +1.781.999.aaaa 16:00:31 Phil has joined #soap-jms 16:00:32 Derek has joined #soap-jms 16:00:48 Zakim, aaaa is peaston 16:00:48 sorry, Roland, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa' 16:01:09 +[IBM] 16:01:30 +Derek 16:01:45 CGI787 has joined #soap-jms 16:02:10 CGI787 has left #soap-jms 16:02:10 +Yves 16:02:16 + +1.650.454.aabb 16:02:38 markphillips has joined #soap-jms 16:03:12 eric has joined #soap-jms 16:03:38 +markphillips 16:04:55 scribe: markphillips 16:05:23 chair: Roland 16:06:57 TOPIC: First Public Draft 16:07:06 zakim, [IBM] is Phil 16:07:06 +Phil; got it 16:07:23 - has been approved - should be published next week 16:13:09 Roland: xml schema has issued last call for 1.1 - SOAP/JMS WG has been invited to review it. In terms of relevance to SOAP/JMS this means checking that string, long, int, boolean, and anyURI are still appropriate for our use 16:13:38 Eric: xsd:string may encompass a wider set of characters 16:14:18 ACTION: markphillips to review the relevant parts of the XML Schema draft on behalf of SOAP/JMS WG 16:14:18 Sorry, couldn't find user - markphillips 16:14:48 TOPIC: Testing the Assertions in the spec. 16:15:55 Roland: How would we use the assertions as the basis for validating implementations of the spec. 16:16:24 alewis: + Phil: No updates since last discussion 16:17:50 Phil: Need to agree to what extent we need to implement the test suite. Does it need to be a packaged turnkey test suite for the vendors 16:19:05 Roland: We need to validate that it is possible to build (multiple) implementations of this spec. 16:20:18 q+ 16:20:24 Roland: e.g. does not need automation in the base test suite 16:22:42 alewis: Who will provide the SOAP/JMS implementations? How will we provide the implementations? Which service provider will we run over? 16:22:45 Roland: We do not have to provide the implementations - we just create the test suite 16:23:25 alewis: We need to prove the test suite as well as the spec. and we need vendor implementations to demonstrate the test suite 16:24:06 Phil: How do we prove the spec. using the test suite? 16:25:43 Roland: If we have multiple implementations that produce the correct outputs according to the test suite, then we have demonstrated that the spec can be implemented 16:30:33 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi 16:31:12 Roland: The W3C process does not require that vendors demonstrate interoperabililty - just that the implementations implement the spec. (see above link ) 16:31:28 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr 16:31:41 [[ 16:31:43 Shown that each feature of the technical report has been implemented. Preferably, the Working Group should be able to demonstrate two interoperable implementations of each feature. If the Director believes that immediate Advisory Committee review is critic 16:31:53 al to the success of a technical report, the Director may accept to Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation even without adequate implementation experience; 16:31:54 ]] 16:32:24 basically the WG has to define what interoperable means, and how it will be tested 16:32:30 alewis: The specification basically asserts what goes through various API calls to exchange JMS SOAP messages 16:34:25 -eric 16:34:43 +eric 16:34:50 Derek: We could meet w3c requirements with a get-together - even a virtual get-together 16:35:55 Roland: We do not need to get together face-to-face to test w3c requirements (though that might be useful for interop. testing). It would be enough to share the results of our tests 16:37:43 Roland: Testing that WSDL is interpreted correctly *is* in scope 16:37:59 alewis: Support for WSDL is optional - how can this be in scope 16:38:08 Roland: Where products support WSDL we must check that they have implemented it according to the spec. 16:40:48 Roland: The WSDL section(s) must not remain in the final version of the specification unless it has been tested by at least one implementation 16:42:20 TOPIC: Next version of specification 16:42:44 Roland: The WG charter states that we should have a last call by September 2008 16:43:49 This does not need to include coompletion of testing, but by the time we get to the Candidate Recommendation then we should have implementations 16:44:54 Still outstanding : 16:44:55 Phil made a suggestion on how we could add a non-normative description of the JMS API 16:45:12 Roland has addressed the nits that Eric identified 16:46:24 Eric has some work to detail what we mean be fully supporting the URI 16:46:24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Jun/att-0029/00-part 16:51:43 RESOLUTION: with reference to the email linked above - we do not need to add any more statements on ContentType and encoding of XML - testing / specifying the XML parser is outside the scope of these tests 16:52:50 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Jun/0031.html 16:53:27 TOPIC: Proposed JMS fragments 16:55:11 Phil: For each property, the proposal (linked above) outlines the different JMS methods required to set the property 16:56:03 Roland: Do we need to list all methods for setting a property, or just give one example? 16:59:19 Eric: Suggest we just show a single example. 17:00:15 Discussion whether we should avoid use of the word 'may' or 'should' because they imply RFC2119 compliance (because this is informative not normative) 17:01:12 alewis: We SHOULD NOT use ambiguous synonyms for RFC2119 terms 17:04:22 alewis: These words must be uppercase as per RFC2119 17:05:14 I have to leave, signing out 17:05:30 -peaston 17:07:06 Roland: We should state that these examples are non-normative 17:08:04 ACTION: Roland to check how we should make the disctinction between normative and non-normative 17:08:04 Created ACTION-15 - Check how we should make the disctinction between normative and non-normative [on Roland Merrick - due 2008-07-22]. 17:08:23 -Roland 17:08:24 -eric 17:08:24 -Derek 17:08:25 -Phil 17:08:26 -Yves 17:08:31 markphillips: We should stick to JMS 1.1 API's - not use the TopicPublisher 17:08:50 Phil has left #soap-jms 17:08:53 -markphillips 17:08:56 -alewis 17:08:58 WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended 17:08:59 Attendees were alewis, Roland, +1.781.999.aaaa, peaston, Derek, Yves, +1.650.454.aabb, markphillips, eric, Phil 17:09:03 rrsagent, generate minutes 17:09:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/07/15-soap-jms-minutes.html markphillips 17:23:25 exit 17:32:10 Zakim, please part 17:32:10 Zakim has left #soap-jms