<Bob> zakim aabb is fmaciel

<Bob> V

<Bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0122.html

<Bob> scribe: Li Li

<gpilz> only in jury duty you get to meet a better class of people

<dug> lesson learned: be late :-)

approval of agenda

agenda approved

approval of minutes

minutes approved w/o objection

discussion of f2f meeting

bob: discuss if to attend w3c tag meeting in ca in november
... we need to decide by 10th march if to attend
... review action items

action #14

<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax

review action #14 - done

bob: review FPWD

Asir: link to issue list missing in FPWD

bob: is it ok insert links to issue list

dug: no benefit to do so

asir: issues should be inserted

<asir> please see item 3 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0083.html

check item #3 in the above link

<Bob> proposal: In the status section of each spec, there should be a statement

<Bob> that explains the intent of this working draft. Perhaps something along

<Bob> the lines of: This working draft is meant only as a direct translation of

<Bob> the submitted spec into W3C format. There are many issues in the working

<Bob> group that will cause changes to this draft. Please see working group

<Bob> issue list.

kathy: is fpwd for w3c?

bob: any objection to the proposal?

ashok: problem with wording

JeffM: object to proposal

roll calling on proposal: y/n

ibm: no

avaya: abstain

redhat: no

software ag: abstain

proposal failed

bob: any other objection to fpwd?

asir: no

<Ashok_Malhotra> Oracle also voted 'No'

bob: any objection to publish 5 fpwd?

no objection, will request to publish them dated today

bob: topic new issues

<Bob> Issue 6587

http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6587

http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6588

<Bob> ACTION: Dug as owner of 6588 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-17 - As owner of 6588 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-03].

http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6594

<Bob> ACTION: Dug as owner of 6594 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-18 - As owner of 6594 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-03].

http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6595

<dug> I'm sure the mute button learns all sorts of new phrases :-)

<asir> :-)

<Geoff> +q

geoff: how to set filter for future?

<dug> isn't this part of the issue discussion?

gil: it's up to event source to decide

<Bob> ACTION: Gilbert as owner of 6595 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-19 - As owner of 6595 [on Gilbert Pilz - due 2009-03-03].

http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6603

<Bob> ACTION: Geoff as owner of 6603 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - As owner of 6603 [on Geoff Bullen - due 2009-03-03].

http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6604

<Bob> acton: Dug as owner of 6604

<Bob> ACTION: Dug as owner of 6604 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-21 - As owner of 6604 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-03-03].

issues with proposals

http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6587

<Bob> ACTION: katy crate proposal for 6587 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-22 - Crate proposal for 6587 [on Katy Warr - due 2009-03-03].

katy: to improve proposal

http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6398

geoff: introduce the proposal

<Bob> Geof's proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0128.html

geoff: align with http, backward comp, ws-i compliant

options for compliant to bp: relax, use policy, or go to bp wg

bob: any questions about the proposal?
... objection to accept proposal?

dug: why voting this one instead of mine?

<gpilz> +q

asir: not sure the proposal is adequately explained

<marklittle> +1 to Katy

katy: thought voting for both

<gpilz> -q

gil: object to microsoft proposal

<asir> where is the consensus?

bob: we have two proposals: geoff's and dug's. is dug's up to date?

<Geoff> +q

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

<Bob> that is the one in the bugzilla

geoff: voting on it is too soon, need more time to discuss

<jeffm> maybe we all think we understand the differences

bob: more questions about both proposals?

<gpilz> +q

wu: we need more time until next week

<TRutt1> keyboard clacking, please mute

bob: we need to clear this.

<jeffm> +q

gil: two camps: back-comp vs. bp compliant, we should vote now

<Katy> +1 to voting and moving on

<marklittle> +1

<asir> -1 to vote without discussion

bob: more discussion won't help change decision
... will anyone change mind with more discussion?

<gpilz> FWIW I've read Geoff's proposal - I understand it and I object to it

<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0128.html

<gpilz> I don't think any further discussion of it would change my opinion

bob: no one will change decision, will call vote on A and B proposals

A=geoff, B=dug

<marklittle> let's just say ibm or msft?

<dug> a=Jan43=IBM b=feb128=MSFT

will vote on ibm vs. microsoft

oracle: ibm

ms: ms

hitachi: ibm

avaya: abstain

redhat: ibm

software ag: abstain

ibm: ibm

bob: any formal objection

<Geoff> Microsoft objects to proposal a from IBM

<jeffm> +q

<marklittle> s/Micstosoft/Microsoft

<marklittle> +1 to Oracle. Has been pushed around for 3 weeks.

jeffm: enough time for people to make up their mind

<dug> actually more - since the f2f

bob: disentangling windows...

http://www.w3c.org/bugs/public/show_bug.cgi?id=6424

geoff: ok with the proposal, come up with suggestions

should we include wsa:To in the infoset?

wu: it is for infoset, not redefine wsa

<dug> +1 to Geoff

<dug> its very confusing - it looks like we're either restating what's already in WSA or worse possibly changing it

geoff: is wse wsa:to different from other usage of wsa:To?

wu: it can support different usage

geoff: more discussion offline

dug: like it because it's simple and gives xml authority
... geoff suggests more text in standard?

geoff: infoset is also normative

wu: we provide infoset and xml binding, implementations must conform to xml

<gpilz> +q

<asir> agree - both normative does not answer the question

<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0106.html

gil: both being normative can create problem

wu: no requirement to produce xml from infoset, rather the mapping is defined by the standard
... infoset and xml should be consistent, in case conflict, xml wins

dug: normative != authoritive

<asir> what environment?

authoritative can overwrite the other

<jeffm> +q

wu: they are free of inconsistency and xml is authoritative

<Geoff> +q

<gpilz> +q

geoff: cardinality is a potential consistency problem
... need to specify xml is authoritative
... infoset may cause inconsistency between different mappings

wu: infoset rules in that case

gpilz: infoset is interesting but is theoretic and makes standard larger

wu: infoset helps on compression, works with other standards

dug: ok with proposal, but object to adding more text to explain issues such as consistence

bob: is this proposal bad?

<dug> w/o the full description in the infoset section I think we'd reduce the chance of inconsistency

<gpilz> +q

gil: not bad proposal but a bad idea

??: need more text to explain

dug: add one sentence is sufficient

<dug> could we perhaps have Wu redo the proposal with Geoff's edits and see what it looks like?

bob: general poll on if we should use infoset

<asir> +1 to dug

<jeffm> +q

<dug> if he wants - I don't think there are a lot of changes but they might be important to help people decide.

wu: infoset extends applicability of wse in a non intrusive way, urge group to leverage infoset

jeffM: where are infoset used?

<jeffm> -q

jeffm: practical use?

wu: compression uses infoset

bob: encourage wu to make next version or not?

oracle: no

hitachi: abstrain

ibm: yes if minimal work

microsoft: yes

avaya: yes

redhat: ?

software ag: ?

bob: do next version of infoset by voting

<Bob> ACTION: Wu to refine proposal for 6424 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Refine proposal for 6424 [on wu chou - due 2009-03-03].

bob: bye

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/??/Asir/
Succeeded: s/??/Asir/
Succeeded: s/something/link to issue list/
Succeeded: s/??/JeffM/
Succeeded: s/85/87/
FAILED: s/Micstosoft/Microsoft/
Succeeded: s/Micsrosoft/Microsoft/
Succeeded: s/authoritive/authoritative/
Succeeded: s/??/jeffM/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: li
Found Scribe: Li Li

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Ashok_Malhotra Asir Bob_Freund Don_Wright Mark_Little P32 SVij Sumeet TRutt1 Tom_Rutt Wu_Chou aaaa aabb acton ashok avaya bob dug fmaciel geoff gil gpilz hitachi ibm jeffM joined kathy katy marklittle microsoft ms oracle prasad proposal redhat trackbot ws-ra wu
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0122.html
Got date from IRC log name: 24 Feb 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/02/24-ws-ra-minutes.html
People with action items: dug geoff gilbert katy wu

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.