IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-02-24
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 20:25:51 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
- 20:25:51 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-irc
- 20:26:01 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #ws-ra
- 20:26:26 [Bob]
- zakim, this will be #WS_WSRA
- 20:26:26 [Zakim]
- I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, Bob
- 20:26:36 [Bob]
- zakim, this will be WS_WSRA
- 20:26:36 [Zakim]
- ok, Bob; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
- 20:26:56 [Bob]
- meeting: WS-Resource Access Working Group
- 20:27:04 [Bob]
- chair: Bob Freund
- 20:28:52 [Bob]
- agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0122.html
- 20:28:57 [prasad]
- prasad has joined #ws-ra
- 20:29:21 [Sumeet]
- Sumeet has joined #ws-ra
- 20:29:34 [Zakim]
- WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
- 20:29:36 [Zakim]
- +Don_Wright
- 20:29:39 [Zakim]
- +Bob_Freund
- 20:29:41 [Zakim]
- + +1.408.876.aaaa
- 20:29:42 [Zakim]
- - +1.408.876.aaaa
- 20:29:42 [Zakim]
- + +1.408.876.aaaa
- 20:30:05 [Zakim]
- +SVij
- 20:30:23 [Ashok_Malhotra]
- Ashok_Malhotra has joined #ws-ra
- 20:30:29 [Bob]
- zakim, aaaa is prasad
- 20:30:30 [Zakim]
- +prasad; got it
- 20:30:42 [Zakim]
- + +1.408.274.aabb
- 20:30:47 [dug]
- dug has joined #ws-ra
- 20:31:09 [Zakim]
- +Tom_Rutt
- 20:31:16 [Zakim]
- +[Microsoft]
- 20:31:18 [Bob]
- zakim aabb is fmaciel
- 20:31:30 [TRutt1]
- TRutt1 has joined #ws-ra
- 20:31:34 [Bob]
- zakim, aabb is fmaciel
- 20:31:34 [Zakim]
- +fmaciel; got it
- 20:31:47 [Zakim]
- +[IBM]
- 20:32:13 [Zakim]
- +Mark_Little
- 20:32:13 [Bob]
- zakim, [IB is dug
- 20:32:13 [Zakim]
- +dug; got it
- 20:32:22 [Zakim]
- +JeffM
- 20:32:42 [Zakim]
- +Wu_Chou
- 20:32:56 [Zakim]
- +gpilz
- 20:32:57 [Zakim]
- +Ashok_Malhotra
- 20:33:13 [Zakim]
- +??P32
- 20:33:17 [Wu]
- Wu has joined #ws-ra
- 20:33:29 [gpilz]
- gpilz has joined #ws-ra
- 20:33:40 [asir]
- asir has joined #ws-ra
- 20:34:01 [li]
- li has joined #ws-ra
- 20:34:03 [Bob]
- zakim, P32 is katy
- 20:34:03 [Zakim]
- sorry, Bob, I do not recognize a party named 'P32'
- 20:34:40 [Katy]
- Katy has joined #ws-ra
- 20:36:18 [Bob]
- zakim, ??P32 is katy
- 20:36:18 [Zakim]
- +katy; got it
- 20:36:19 [jeffm]
- jeffm has joined #ws-ra
- 20:36:44 [Bob]
- V
- 20:36:49 [Bob]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0122.html
- 20:37:53 [Bob]
- scribe: Li Li
- 20:38:15 [gpilz]
- only in jury duty you get to meet a better class of people
- 20:38:16 [dug]
- lesson learned: be late :-)
- 20:38:49 [li]
- approval of agenda
- 20:38:57 [li]
- agenda approved
- 20:39:09 [li]
- approval of minutes
- 20:39:37 [li]
- minutes approved w/o objection
- 20:40:21 [li]
- discussion of f2f meeting
- 20:41:59 [li]
- bob: discuss if to attend w3c tag meeting in ca in november
- 20:44:29 [li]
- bob: we need to decide by 10th march if to attend
- 20:45:08 [li]
- bob: review action items
- 20:45:34 [li]
- action #14
- 20:45:34 [trackbot]
- Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
- 20:45:52 [li]
- review action #14 - done
- 20:47:31 [li]
- bob: review FPWD
- 20:48:24 [li]
- ??: something missing in FPWD
- 20:48:34 [dug]
- s/??/Asir/
- 20:48:36 [Bob]
- s/??/Asir
- 20:48:40 [dug]
- s/something/link to issue list
- 20:48:52 [Ashok_Malhotra]
- q+
- 20:49:02 [Bob]
- ack ashok
- 20:49:36 [dug]
- q+
- 20:49:45 [Bob]
- ack dug
- 20:50:12 [li]
- bob: is it ok insert links to issue list
- 20:50:21 [li]
- dug: no benefit to do so
- 20:50:41 [asir]
- q+
- 20:50:47 [Bob]
- ack asir
- 20:51:59 [li]
- asir: issues should be inserted
- 20:52:02 [asir]
- please see item 3 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0083.html
- 20:52:50 [li]
- check item #3 in the above link
- 20:53:18 [Bob]
- proposal: In the status section of each spec, there should be a statement
- 20:53:20 [Bob]
- that explains the intent of this working draft. Perhaps something along
- 20:53:21 [Bob]
- the lines of: This working draft is meant only as a direct translation of
- 20:53:23 [Bob]
- the submitted spec into W3C format. There are many issues in the working
- 20:53:24 [Katy]
- q+
- 20:53:24 [Bob]
- group that will cause changes to this draft. Please see working group
- 20:53:26 [Bob]
- issue list.
- 20:53:32 [Bob]
- ack katy
- 20:53:59 [li]
- kathy: is fpwd for w3c?
- 20:54:39 [li]
- bob: any objection to the proposal?
- 20:55:19 [li]
- ashok: problem with wording
- 20:56:04 [li]
- ??: object to proposal
- 20:56:35 [Bob]
- s/??/JeffM
- 20:57:36 [li]
- roll calling on proposal: y/n
- 20:57:53 [li]
- ibm: no
- 20:58:05 [li]
- avaya: abstain
- 20:58:09 [li]
- redhat: no
- 20:58:19 [li]
- software ag: abstain
- 20:58:44 [li]
- proposal failed
- 20:59:12 [li]
- bob: any other objection to fpwd?
- 20:59:16 [li]
- asir: no
- 20:59:32 [Ashok_Malhotra]
- Oracle also voted 'No'
- 20:59:58 [li]
- bob: any objection to publish 5 fpwd?
- 21:00:24 [li]
- no objection, will request to publish them dated today
- 21:01:07 [li]
- bob: topic new issues
- 21:01:25 [Bob]
- Issue 6587
- 21:01:43 [li]
- http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6585
- 21:02:08 [Bob]
- s/85/87
- 21:02:24 [li]
- http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6588
- 21:03:28 [Bob]
- Action: Dug as owner of 6588
- 21:03:29 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-17 - As owner of 6588 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-03].
- 21:03:38 [li]
- http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6594
- 21:05:19 [Bob]
- Action: Dug as owner of 6594
- 21:05:19 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-18 - As owner of 6594 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-03].
- 21:05:30 [li]
- http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6595
- 21:06:00 [dug]
- I'm sure the mute button learns all sorts of new phrases :-)
- 21:06:17 [asir]
- :-)
- 21:07:41 [Geoff]
- +q
- 21:07:56 [Bob]
- ack geo
- 21:08:22 [li]
- geoff: how to set filter for future?
- 21:08:43 [dug]
- isn't this part of the issue discussion?
- 21:09:01 [li]
- gil: it's up to event source to decide
- 21:09:16 [Bob]
- Action: Gilbert as owner of 6595
- 21:09:16 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-19 - As owner of 6595 [on Gilbert Pilz - due 2009-03-03].
- 21:09:30 [li]
- http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6603
- 21:10:40 [Bob]
- Action: Geoff as owner of 6603
- 21:10:40 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-20 - As owner of 6603 [on Geoff Bullen - due 2009-03-03].
- 21:10:54 [li]
- http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6604
- 21:11:53 [Bob]
- acton: Dug as owner of 6604
- 21:12:02 [Bob]
- action: Dug as owner of 6604
- 21:12:02 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-21 - As owner of 6604 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-03].
- 21:12:14 [li]
- topic: issues with proposals
- 21:12:36 [li]
- http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6587
- 21:13:31 [Bob]
- action: katy crate proposal for 6587
- 21:13:32 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-22 - Crate proposal for 6587 [on Katy Warr - due 2009-03-03].
- 21:13:46 [li]
- katy: to improve proposal
- 21:13:58 [li]
- http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6398
- 21:14:42 [li]
- geoff: introduce the proposal
- 21:15:09 [Bob]
- Geof's proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0128.html
- 21:15:51 [li]
- geoff: align with http, backward comp, ws-i compliant
- 21:16:27 [li]
- options for compliant to bp: relax, use policy, or go to bp wg
- 21:17:16 [li]
- bob: any questions about the proposal?
- 21:17:50 [li]
- bob: objection to accept proposal?
- 21:18:02 [li]
- dug: why voting this one instead of mine?
- 21:18:02 [asir]
- asir has joined #ws-ra
- 21:18:07 [asir]
- q+
- 21:18:14 [Katy]
- q+
- 21:18:20 [Bob]
- ack asir
- 21:18:24 [gpilz]
- +q
- 21:19:09 [li]
- asir: not sure the proposal is adequately explained
- 21:19:20 [Bob]
- ack katy
- 21:19:34 [marklittle]
- +1 to Katy
- 21:19:45 [li]
- katy: thought voting for both
- 21:19:51 [Bob]
- ack gpi
- 21:19:55 [gpilz]
- -q
- 21:20:05 [li]
- gil: object to microsoft proposal
- 21:20:15 [asir]
- where is the consensus?
- 21:21:01 [li]
- bob: we have two proposals: geoff's and dug's. is dug's up to date?
- 21:21:42 [Geoff]
- +q
- 21:21:52 [Bob]
- ack geoff
- 21:21:58 [dug]
- here it is: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jan/0043.html
- 21:22:18 [Bob]
- that is the one in the bugzilla
- 21:22:35 [li]
- geoff: voting on it is too soon, need more time to discuss
- 21:22:48 [jeffm]
- maybe we all think we understand the differences
- 21:23:25 [Wu]
- q+
- 21:23:31 [Bob]
- ack wu
- 21:23:33 [li]
- bob: more questions about both proposals?
- 21:23:48 [gpilz]
- +q
- 21:23:51 [li]
- wu: we need more time until next week
- 21:24:04 [TRutt1]
- keyboard clacking, please mute
- 21:24:06 [Bob]
- ack gpi
- 21:24:10 [li]
- bob: we need to clear this.
- 21:24:21 [jeffm]
- +q
- 21:24:32 [Bob]
- ack jeff
- 21:24:42 [li]
- gil: two camps: back-comp vs. bp compliant, we should vote now
- 21:24:45 [Katy]
- +1 to voting and moving on
- 21:24:53 [marklittle]
- +1
- 21:24:53 [asir]
- -1 to vote without discussion
- 21:25:24 [li]
- bob: more discussion won't help change decision
- 21:26:04 [li]
- bob: will anyone change mind with more discussion?
- 21:26:54 [gpilz]
- FWIW I've read Geoff's proposal - I understand it and I object to it
- 21:27:12 [dug]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0128.html
- 21:27:17 [gpilz]
- I don't think any further discussion of it would change my opinion
- 21:27:59 [li]
- bob: no one will change decision, will call vote on A and B proposals
- 21:28:12 [li]
- A=geoff, B=dug
- 21:28:30 [marklittle]
- let's just say ibm or msft?
- 21:28:36 [dug]
- a=Jan43=IBM b=feb128=MSFT
- 21:29:27 [li]
- will vote on ibm vs. microsoft
- 21:29:39 [li]
- oracle: ibm
- 21:29:42 [li]
- ms: ms
- 21:29:48 [li]
- hitachi: ibm
- 21:29:59 [li]
- avaya: abstain
- 21:30:03 [li]
- redhat: ibm
- 21:30:16 [li]
- software ag: abstain
- 21:30:38 [li]
- ibm: ibm
- 21:31:24 [li]
- bob: any formal objection
- 21:31:25 [Geoff]
- Micsrosoft objects to proposal a from IBM
- 21:31:45 [jeffm]
- +q
- 21:31:50 [marklittle]
- s/Micstosoft/Microsoft
- 21:31:56 [Bob]
- ack jeffm
- 21:32:09 [marklittle]
- s/Micsrosoft/Microsoft
- 21:32:35 [marklittle]
- +1 to Oracle. Has been pushed around for 3 weeks.
- 21:32:41 [li]
- jeffm: enough time for people to make up their mind
- 21:32:44 [dug]
- actually more - since the f2f
- 21:34:17 [li]
- bob: disentangling windows...
- 21:34:29 [Zakim]
- -Mark_Little
- 21:34:33 [li]
- http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6424
- 21:36:05 [li]
- geoff: ok with the proposal, come up with suggestions
- 21:36:46 [li]
- should we include wsa:To in the infoset?
- 21:37:22 [li]
- wu: it is for infoset, not redefine wsa
- 21:37:46 [Bob]
- q?
- 21:37:48 [dug]
- +1 to Geoff
- 21:38:11 [dug]
- its very confusing - it looks like we're either restating what's already in WSA or worse possibly changing it
- 21:38:14 [li]
- geoff: is wse wsa:to different from other usage of wsa:To?
- 21:39:37 [li]
- wu: it can support different usage
- 21:39:57 [li]
- geoff: more discussion offline
- 21:41:10 [li]
- dug: like it because it's simple and gives xml authority
- 21:41:44 [li]
- dug: geoff suggests more text in standard?
- 21:42:21 [li]
- geoff: infoset is also normative
- 21:43:01 [li]
- wu: we provide infoset and xml binding, implementations must conform to xml
- 21:43:12 [gpilz]
- +q
- 21:43:27 [Bob]
- ack gp
- 21:43:41 [asir]
- agree - both normative does not answer the question
- 21:44:28 [dug]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0106.html
- 21:44:35 [li]
- gil: both being normative can create problem
- 21:45:27 [li]
- wu: no requirement to produce xml from infoset, rather the mapping is defined by the standard
- 21:46:05 [li]
- wu: infoset and xml should be consistent, in case conflict, xml wins
- 21:46:28 [li]
- dug: normative != authoritive
- 21:46:33 [asir]
- what environment?
- 21:47:09 [li]
- authoritive can overwrite the other
- 21:47:10 [jeffm]
- +q
- 21:47:51 [li]
- wu: they are free of inconsistency and xml is authoritative
- 21:48:19 [Bob]
- ack jeffm
- 21:48:24 [Geoff]
- +q
- 21:48:31 [Bob]
- ack geo
- 21:48:35 [li]
- s/authoritive/authoritative/
- 21:48:40 [gpilz]
- +q
- 21:49:15 [li]
- geoff: cardinality is a potential consistency problem
- 21:49:35 [li]
- geoff: need to specify xml is authoritative
- 21:50:42 [li]
- geoff: infoset may cause inconsistency between different mappings
- 21:50:55 [Bob]
- ack gpi
- 21:51:03 [li]
- wu: infoset rules in that case
- 21:51:58 [li]
- gpilz: infoset is interesting but is theoretic and makes standard larger
- 21:52:04 [dug]
- q+
- 21:52:27 [Bob]
- ack dug
- 21:52:32 [li]
- wu: infoset helps on compression, works with other standards
- 21:53:17 [li]
- dug: ok with proposal, but object to adding more text to explain issues such as consistence
- 21:53:43 [asir]
- q+
- 21:53:50 [li]
- bob: is this proposal bad?
- 21:53:54 [dug]
- w/o the full description in the infoset section I think we'd reduce the chance of inconsistency
- 21:54:04 [gpilz]
- +q
- 21:54:07 [Bob]
- ack asir
- 21:54:08 [li]
- gil: not bad proposal but a bad idea
- 21:55:00 [dug]
- q+
- 21:55:07 [Bob]
- ack gpi
- 21:55:22 [li]
- ??: need more text to explain
- 21:55:28 [Bob]
- ack dug
- 21:56:07 [li]
- dug: add one sentence is sufficient
- 21:56:43 [Wu]
- q+
- 21:57:07 [dug]
- could we perhaps have Wu redo the proposal with Geoff's edits and see what it looks like?
- 21:57:07 [li]
- bob: general poll on if we should use infoset
- 21:57:18 [asir]
- +1 to dug
- 21:57:26 [jeffm]
- +q
- 21:57:42 [Bob]
- ack wu
- 21:57:45 [dug]
- if he wants - I don't think there are a lot of changes but they might be important to help people decide.
- 21:57:54 [Bob]
- ack jeffm
- 21:58:00 [li]
- wu: infoset extends applicability of wse in a non intrusive way, urge group to leverage infoset
- 21:58:33 [li]
- ??: where are infoset used?
- 21:58:45 [Bob]
- s/??/jeffM
- 21:59:19 [jeffm]
- -q
- 21:59:22 [li]
- jeffm: practical use?
- 21:59:33 [li]
- wu: compression uses infoset
- 22:00:02 [li]
- bob: encourage wu to make next version or not?
- 22:00:16 [li]
- oracle: no
- 22:00:22 [li]
- hitachi: abstrain
- 22:00:37 [li]
- ibm: yes if minimal work
- 22:00:57 [li]
- microsoft: yes
- 22:00:59 [li]
- avaya: yes
- 22:01:17 [li]
- redhat: ?
- 22:01:26 [li]
- software ag: ?
- 22:01:47 [li]
- bob: do next version of infoset by voting
- 22:01:49 [Bob]
- action: Wu to refine proposal for 6424
- 22:01:49 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-23 - Refine proposal for 6424 [on wu chou - due 2009-03-03].
- 22:02:03 [Zakim]
- -SVij
- 22:02:04 [Zakim]
- -JeffM
- 22:02:11 [Zakim]
- -gpilz
- 22:02:12 [li]
- bob: bye
- 22:02:12 [Zakim]
- -[Microsoft]
- 22:02:13 [Zakim]
- -prasad
- 22:02:14 [Zakim]
- -Wu_Chou
- 22:02:14 [Zakim]
- -Ashok_Malhotra
- 22:02:17 [Zakim]
- -Tom_Rutt
- 22:02:18 [Zakim]
- -dug
- 22:02:18 [Zakim]
- -katy
- 22:02:20 [Zakim]
- -Don_Wright
- 22:02:22 [Bob]
- rrsagent, make logs public
- 22:02:22 [Zakim]
- -fmaciel
- 22:02:31 [prasad]
- prasad has left #ws-ra
- 22:02:43 [fmaciel]
- fmaciel has left #ws-ra
- 22:02:52 [gpilz]
- gpilz has left #ws-ra
- 22:03:08 [Bob]
- zakim, who was here?
- 22:03:08 [Zakim]
- I don't understand your question, Bob.
- 22:05:10 [Bob]
- rrsagent, generate minutes
- 22:05:10 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html Bob
- 22:07:21 [Zakim]
- disconnecting the lone participant, Bob_Freund, in WS_WSRA()3:30PM
- 22:07:23 [Zakim]
- WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
- 22:07:26 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Don_Wright, Bob_Freund, +1.408.876.aaaa, SVij, prasad, +1.408.274.aabb, Tom_Rutt, [Microsoft], fmaciel, [IBM], Mark_Little, dug, JeffM, Wu_Chou, gpilz,
- 22:07:28 [Zakim]
- ... Ashok_Malhotra, katy
- 22:51:55 [dug]
- dug has left #ws-ra
- 22:54:28 [TRutt1]
- TRutt1 has left #ws-ra