See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 31 March 2009
<dug> Gil - I just +1'd your idea for Mode attribute - I think that's a good compromise.
<Bob> zakim ??P14 is katy
<asir> Scribe: Asir S Vedamuthu
<asir> ScribeNick:asir
<Bob> Roll 15 folks on the call
dialing back in
pressed the wrong button
<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0130.html
Resolution: unanimously approved the minute from March 24th
Minutes are at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/9/03/2009-03-24.html
Bob: describing the * | # | X notation
Bob - can you type the list?
<Bob> New issue 6739
6739 accepted
Assigned to Dug
Infoset issues - WG wanted to review infoset notation for all specs prioring to adoption
Bob: looking for owners
<li> ping
<Ram> ping
<Bob> pong
<DaveS> ping
<fmaciel> ping
<Bob> scribenick: Gil
<gpilz> Scribe: gpilz
<asir> am back
<asir> let me dump the missing buffer
<asir> <asir> Bob: looking for owners
<asir> <asir> No owners ... these issues are in the "wanted drivers" lot
<asir> <asir> Resolution: accepted issue 6739
<asir> <asir> Topic: New Snapshots and WD time?
<asir> <asir> Bob: time to create a snapshot
<asir> <asir> Bob: Yves is not on the call. Editors do not touch the drafts
<Bob> scribenick: gpilz
<asir> <asir> Bob: plans to create a snapshot
<asir> <asir> ... goal is review the incorporation of resolved issues
<asir> <asir> q+
<asir> <asir> s/is review/is to review/
<asir> <asir> ... send your review comments to the WG mailing list
aisr: will diffs be provided as part of the snapshots?
dug: I can tag the CVS tree, Yves could produce diffs
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6730
<dug> create a tag called "WD-2008-03-31"
dave: at the time this was
written this redundant text may have been necessary
...: but, at this time, everyone knows how this works
ram: spec has to define what base
behavior is
...: extensibility behavior should be defined
ashok: are we asking to remove all occurences of this text?
dave: remove it in all places
<asir> cant hear Katy
katy: if we are going to have
this extensibility behavior specified, do we need to have it
restated over and over?
...: seems to make more sense just to state it once
dug: I see Dave's point; even
saying it once is redundant
...: we've already defined how extenisbility points must work
across all specs
... why is WS-Transfer special?
Bob: is it true that none of the other specs have this language?
dug: yes
katy: don't want to do this unless it is specified across all specs
asir: this outlines how to extend
the transfer operations using the SOAP processing model
...: we may need to refactor
Bob: how strong is your objection?
asir: I don't understand why we are removing this
<asir> repetition should be refactored
DaveS: the offensive text is repeating stuff that is already specified in the SOAP processing model
<asir> am not aware of
anything hidden
...: readers may wonder why we are re-stating this? is there
some special wierdness that they are missing?
<asir> the important aspects
are - use SOAP Processing Model and MUST NOT change teh base
behavior
...: it is worse than just being rendundant
... it is phrased slightly differently, which is bound to
create confusion
... and possibly interoperability problems
<asir> Circumvention is not the intent
<dug> +1 to dave - it will
confuse people - they'll wonder why we're repeating it -
usually that's because something is different and that's not
the case.
...: may lead readers to the belief that WS-T is circumventing
normal SOAP processing rules
Bob: in the legal world, if you restate something that is already stated, you do so to draw attention to a special distinction
Ram: (agrees that there is a
sense of redundancy and some repitition)
...: perhaps we could re-factor?
<dug> we already have an extensibility section
<dug> section 2.4 of WST already has this info
<dug> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wst.html#extensions
<asir> not all
<asir> That section does not capture all bits
Doug: we talked about this on last weeks phone call - we added a section on extensibility to all the specs
DaveS: we need to outline where
the extensibility points are
...: but there is already a section on extensibility (added
last week)
Bob: we already have sections on
extensibility in every spec
...: given that, how do people feel?
Ashok: I'm ok with it
asir: what is going to be removed?
DaveS: the exact text that is quoted
asir: I'm not sure about that
Ashok: he has the exact paragraph that he intends to take out
asir: I think there might be one or two words that are differnt in each paragraph
DaveS: you can clearly see which paragraphs are copies
dug: speaking as an editor, it is really obvious
asir: it is not the same text, so I don't know
dug: I'm pretty sure the editors can figure it out
Bob: so where do we stand?
asir: I propose that Dave provide us a detailed list of which paragraphs will be dropped
DaveS: have that by the end of the call
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6499
dug: define an action URI for
WS-Enum specifically
...: WS-Enum is the only section that inlines fault
definitions
... move these to a common section like all other specs
Bob: any questions?
Ashok: This would bring all 5 specs inline?
dug: w/respect to how faults are defined, yes
Ashok: excellent
<asir> vow!
<dug> and they rejoiced!
Bob: any objections to accepting
resolved: proposal to 6499 accepted by UC
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6413
Bob: I need to make sure that the
text for all our proposals need to be on the W3C website
...: I've copied the refernced material onto the W3C
website
Katy: (go back to March F2F) merge WS-T and WS-RT
<Bob> proposal at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/9/03/Issue-6413-2009-03-25.html
...: key concern was what would be included etc.
... we took an AI to create a new proposal that just included
the base WS-RT support in WS-T
... Doug, Dave, and I worked this and came up with the above
proposal
... (describes proposal)
<Katy> This OPTIONAL attribute, when present, indicates the dialect to be used in order to process the child element(s) of the wst:Get and the format of the wst:GetResponse element that is returned. This specification defines a standard dialect in Appendix A. Other dialects may be defined by other specifications.
<Katy> A resource MUST generate a wst:UnsupportedDialectFault if it does not support the specified dialect.
<Katy> When this attribute is not present, child elements of the wst:Get MUST be ignored.
dug: the addition of the dialect
attribute on the 4 operations, aside from the fragment support,
is a good thing for WS-T
...: a dialect attribute helps to disambiguate some situations
that are ambigious in WS-T
... e.g. "actual representation" versus "template
constructor"
Bob: comments, reactions?
asir: would like to walk through
our objections (posted on email)
... (walks through objections)
<dug> HTTP has no influence on this WG. Neither the charter nor the Transfer specification mentions HTTP at all.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0151.html
<dug> please stay within scope of the WG
<Bob> for example this one http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dusseault-http-patch-13
Bob: anything that isn't implented by CR will get dropped
asir: these things will end up
"at risk"
...: we found that some WS-RT features are unclear, broken,
dangerous and harmful
<dug> I don't recall what
Asir said
...: we don't recall asking for another proposal
<Bob> Asir, pontification and
repetition of history is not necessary
...: this one seems to drop the controversial (???) feature
<Bob> pontification is my
relm
...: it seems to add a new processing model based on attribute
values instead of the standard SOAP processing model which is
based on headers
<dug> but repeating (your own
version of) history allows for more time to be wasted
...: looking back at the F2F, it appears to us we need to (a)
fix inconsistencies between WS-T and WS-RT
... (b) don't endanger the "sweet spot"
... (c) wider update?
... we need to continue to explore and invent partial updat
features that compose well with WS-T
... we need to do this right
... fix isssues
... do not endanger the sweet spot
... do things right
Katy: on the concerns that Asir
has raised: these concerns were raised and acknowledged
...: we've gone to great lengths to address them
... the fragment level support is optional and should not
impact those that do not wish to support them
... huge parts of WS-RT are not in this proposal; none of the
metadata, none of the qnames, none of the (??) dialect (i.e.
the simplest dialect is the only one that has been pulled
in)
... want to re-emphasize that this is an optional feature
Ashok: Asir, you quoted an IETF draft?
Bob: that was me
...: Asire mentions "PATCH"
... that is a reference to the current draft for PATCH
asir: (history of PATCH) no
uptake on this
...: recently it seems like the Atom community would like this
feature
<dug> But clearly there is
"uptake" for fragment support in the WS* space since wsman and
ws-fed use it
...: I provided a lot of references on this
asir: Katy said she addressed all
the issues
...: one issue was addressed (the controversial
boxcarring)
... a merger is a merger and we don't understand why we need a
merger
... it has consequences and impacts other communities and we
need to consult with those communities
Bob: we've heard one side
w/regards to reservations
...: is there someone willing to speak on the benefits
dug: two aspects
...: (1) the definition of a dialect - generally useful for
WS-T
... fragment support is a widely used feature in WS-MAN,
etc.
... we need to provide guidance to the community on how to do
this or we will end up with lots of different ways
... that would hurt interop
... we want a single solution that is shared across
domains
... not domain-sepific solutions
Bob: if, at the end of this
process, there isn't the proper number of impls
...: this feature will be marked "at risk"
... this is true regardless of whether these features are part
of a separate spec (WS-RT) or in WS-T
DaveS: does the same thing apply to optional features?
Bob: yes
...: even if a feature is optional, we need to prove
interop
asir: that's an important point
(interop or "at risk")
...: none of the benefits result from merging
... they still have value
<dug> not true - we lose the linking of the features
Bob: are you saying the dialect feature could be added regardless of frag support?
asir: yes, that could be in a separate spec
Wu: I remember during the F2F
meeting at Raleigh, this issue was discussed
...: I saw a proposal that I thought was very good - we don't
want to merge at this point
... develop each as a separate spec, and see if we want to
merge at the end
... the important thing is to develop WS-T and WS-RT
DaveS: value of including frag
support in the main spec
...: within the community there are a lot of different
approaches to doing fragments at various levels in the
stack
... this is about demonstrating leadership
... if we leave this out that leaves the ws community w/out
guidance
... the proposal here is very conistent with ws architecture
w/respect to identify a resource
... (no reference parameters, etc.)
... demonstrate leadership, uniform frag support, don't worry
about implementations (they will come)
asir: leadership is not a
function of merging
...: people will take our leadership seriously
... leadership is not a function of merge
..: leadership is not a function of merge
Bob: let's take a straw poll on the essence of the proposal
<asir> Yves is not here to
represetn w3c
...: everyone clear?
... "yes" is "in favor of"
... "no" is "not in favor of"
Wu: it is very hard for us to
make decisions
...: because we don't know the consequences
Bob: everyone clear?
<asir> Yves is not here to represent W3c
Oracle - yes
Microsoft - no
IBM - yes
Fujitsu - yes
Hitachi - yes
Avaya - abstain
SoftwareAG - yes
Bob: one 'no', a bunch of 'yesses' and one 'need more time'
<asir> Yves is not here
...: Wu, would one week do?
<asir> am very concerned about how we build consensus
Wu: two weeks would be great
Bob: we'll give Avaya two
weeks
...: in the meantime, maybe we can move closer to consensus
asir: it's too late
...: I wanted to mentioned that yves is not here
... we don't seem to be building consensus
DaveS: point of order - I've posted an update to our previous issue
Wu: ... I would also hope that IBM and Microsoft could communicate on this issue - that would help us
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6730\
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6730
DaveS: (describes update)
...: the text to be removed is definitely redundant
Ram: thanks to Dave
Snelling
...: it looks fine
... I have one question
... Section 2.4 of the editors copy talks about extension
points
... I was wondering if this notion of extension points has been
identified in WS-T
DaveS: this issue was solved a couple of calls ago
<dug> xs:any and ... are the
extension points
...: all specs call out what their extension points are
Ram: have the extension points
for WS-T be described?
...: I'm fine with Section 2.4
... but I'm worried about extension points
... I'd like to look at the proposal and reply by email
Bob: we don't usually decide things by email, would you like more time?
Ram: can we wait a couple of days?
DaveS: it's a simple thing
(other): concur
Bob: I recognize that some folks may need to talk to the mother ship, but this issue has been kicking around a while
Ram: it is generally good to have a concrete proposal a couple of days before the call
DaveS: the original proposal was
precise
...: people just called on more precision for this call
asir: can we have a week
Bob: yes, but any more time is going above and beyond
yyi,ms7ik8yhsdkyujuau7jmkyyhjunmyu7jhnm
DaveS: could people actually talk
to their product people?
...: because it seems unlikely that anyone asked their product
people about the previous incarnation
<Bob> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/BugzillaReports.html
dug: if people need more detail,
they should say so before the concall
...: not wait until the day of the concall to say they need
more detail
Bob: people should look at the
issues with proposals and be prepared to discuss them
...: it seems that people are capable of using the email list
to discuss proposals
... when I don't see any debate, I get the feeling that people
are in general agreement
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/asire/asir/ Succeeded: s/fir/for/ Succeeded: s/SoftwareAG/Hitachi/ Found Scribe: Asir S Vedamuthu Found ScribeNick: asir Found ScribeNick: Gil Found Scribe: gpilz WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Gil> ... Found ScribeNick: gpilz Scribes: Asir S Vedamuthu, gpilz ScribeNicks: asir, Gil, gpilz Default Present: +1.212.642.aaaa, +0120756aabb, Tom_Rutt, Bob_Freund, [IBM], Dug, fmaciel, Gilbert, [Microsoft], ram, Vikas, Ashok_Malhotra, katy Present: +1.212.642.aaaa +0120756aabb Tom_Rutt Bob_Freund [IBM] Dug fmaciel Gilbert [Microsoft] ram Vikas Ashok_Malhotra katy Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0130.html Found Date: 31 Mar 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/03/31-ws-ra-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]