WS-RA WG Distributed Meeting -- 20 Jan 2009

<GregC> I guess GregC is first on the scribe list

<GregC> and willing?

<GregC> Tag, I'm it.

<Bob> scribe: Greg Carpenter

<GregC> I'm am trying to get to the FAQ., but experiencing some delays ...

<dug> how do I get the link to the minutes/rssagent?

<dug> thanks

<dug> Geoff "holds" Asir??

<dug> too much info :-)

<gpilz> finally found an IRC client that can work with Oracle's proxy

<Vikas> This is Vikas

<dug> LOL we need webconf :-)

<GregC> The agenda is available at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jan/0045.html

<GregC> The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog

<GregC> s/teh/the

<dug> I believe Greg was suckered into that one!

Agenda

<GregC> add "unilateral wihtdrawal of issues" to the agenda

minutes

<GregC> People need more time to read and approve minutes from f2f

Next week's meeting

<GregC> bob: I wont be able chair

<GregC> bob: should we cancel or have Yves chair?

<GregC> Meeting will be held as planned, Yves will chair

creation of first working drafts

<GregC> bob: Editors should use CVS to avoid "lost updates" from multiple editors

<GregC> Editors need to get Public Keys if they don't already have one

<GregC> bob: first drafts in W3C format with no changes

<GregC> bob: who will produce which first working drafts and when

<GregC> dug: are there conversion tools and should we use them?

<GregC> asir: conversion tools are avialable but still require significant manual effort

<dug> yves which doc were you thinking of?

<GregC> Yves: Perhaps some subnissions are already up to spec and will be easier?

<GregC> bob: In two weeks time, all submitted specs will be converted and available in xml spec format

<GregC> bob: specs may come out independently during that time

<GregC> bob: people will be given adequate time to review

<GregC> ACTION: editors will have first Public Working drafts available on or before Feb 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/20-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]

<asir> Yves - you probably want to think about a Tracker user named 'editors'

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

<trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel' (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)

Primer - WHat, who, how, when

<Yves> tracker not associated to irc yet, but we can the web interface for now

<GregC> bob: some WGs find a primer to be a useful aid to understanding the specs

<GregC> bob: Shall the WS-RA WG produce a primer?

<GregC> ??: One Primer per spec, or just one Primer?

<dug> While I think, in general, primers are good, until we have an area of confusion I'd prefer to wait

<GregC> bob: Is there anyone on this call who is willing to write a Primer?

<GregC> gpilz: maybe

<dug> my first choice would be to have areas of confusion be fixed in the spec

<GregC> GregC: Primers are for wordy explanations that might not be appropriate for a spec

<GregC> gpilz: tend to agree -- good place for use cases, etc

new issues

<Yves> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6442

<GregC> Issue 6442

<GregC> bob: any opposition to accepting issue 6442?

<GregC> bob: Accepted without opposition

<GregC> bob: Issue assigned to gpilz

<GregC> bob: I assume the open question in the initial issue will be addressed with a more specific proposal

<GregC> Geoff: Note that this is another example of the larger upgrade to support WS-Addressing REC

<GregC> Geoff: do we have lots of individual issues (which is OK, just asking)

<Prasad2> +1 to having separate issues, helps focus the issue to specific area or matter

<dug> bob - there's 6459

<dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6459

<GregC> bob: granularity is up to the issue submitter

<GregC> new issue 6459

<gpilz> good catch!

<GregC> bob: issue 6459 accepted without opposition and assigned to Li

Issues with proposals:

<dug> this is the _easy_ one you mentioned at the f2f :-)

<Bob> scribe: Bob

<Prasad2> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6433

ITopic: Issue-6433

proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jan/0041.html

<dug> backbones?

<gregcarp> Can you see me now?

<gpilz> +1 to Doug

<gpilz> +q

<dug> LOL

<Prasad2> So, the WS-A:EPR definition has no extensibility built in?

<gpilz> EPR's have extensibility in them

Bob: The extensibility facet of this issue was decided at the f2f to be separate from the decision of which version of epr to reference

<gpilz> +q

resolution: Resolve Issue-6433 with the proposal contained in Bugzilla Comment #1 w/o

<dug> latest 6398: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jan/0043.html

Issue-6398

<Prasad2> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6398

<dug> no objection to more digestion/composting :-)

<asir> what was that :-)

send to the list and defer consideration for a future meeting

Issue-6426

<dug> since this was pretty much covered at the f2f I wouldn't object to accepting it now - but no objection to composting either :-)

proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jan/0047.html

Li introduces his proposal

<gpilz> I wouldn't object to accepting it either - good work

Issue-6427

Li introduces his prosal

<gpilz> again this looks acceptable

Issues 6408 6409 6410 6414 6415 6416

Originator wishes to withdraw these issues

resolution: Gudge 6408 6409 6410 6414 6415 6416 w/o

- DRAFT -

WS-RA WG Distributed Meeting

20 Jan 2009

Attendees

Contents