18:57:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
18:57:41 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-ws-ra-irc
18:57:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
18:57:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ws-ra
18:57:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WSRA
18:57:45 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 33 minutes
18:57:46 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
18:57:46 <trackbot> Date: 21 April 2009
18:57:54 <Yves> Chair: Bob
19:21:15 <Bob> Bob has joined #ws-ra
19:21:38 <Bob> trackbot, begin conference
19:21:38 <trackbot> Sorry, Bob, I don't understand 'trackbot, begin conference'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
19:22:07 <Bob> trackbit, status
19:22:14 <Bob> trackbot, status
19:23:00 <Bob> trackbot, start telcon
19:23:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
19:23:05 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:23:05 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
19:23:06 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:23:06 <trackbot> Date: 21 April 2009
19:24:05 <fmaciel> fmaciel has joined #ws-ra
19:25:20 <li> li has joined #ws-ra
19:25:42 <Zakim> WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
19:25:43 <Zakim> +Bob_Freund
19:26:55 <dug> dug has joined #ws-ra
19:27:11 <Geoff> Geoff has joined #ws-ra
19:27:46 <Zakim> +Doug_Davis
19:27:48 <Zakim> -Doug_Davis
19:27:48 <Zakim> +Doug_Davis
19:27:54 <DaveS> DaveS has joined #ws-ra
19:28:43 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
19:28:44 <DaveS> Hi Bob, I on line and will dial in in  a few minutes. I'll tell you when I connect.
19:29:05 <Zakim> + +1.408.970.aaaa
19:29:12 <fmaciel> zakim, aaaa is fmaciel
19:29:12 <Zakim> +fmaciel; got it
19:29:13 <TRutt> TRutt has joined #ws-ra
19:29:16 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:29:23 <Bob> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Apr/0126.html
19:29:30 <Zakim> + +1.908.696.aabb
19:29:36 <Bob> zakim, [Micro is Geoff
19:29:36 <Zakim> +Geoff; got it
19:29:46 <Bob> zakim, Geoff has Asir
19:29:46 <Zakim> +Asir; got it
19:30:55 <Zakim> +Gilbert_Pilz
19:31:01 <Zakim> + +1.571.262.aacc
19:31:05 <Zakim> +katy
19:31:20 <Bob> zakim, aacc is Vikas
19:31:20 <Zakim> +Vikas; got it
19:31:57 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
19:32:01 <li> zakim, aabb is li
19:32:01 <Zakim> +li; got it
19:32:09 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
19:32:52 <Bob> scribe: Asir
19:33:17 <asir> asir has joined #ws-ra
19:33:43 <Vikas> Vikas has joined #ws-ra
19:34:26 <DaveS> DaveS has joined #ws-ra
19:34:59 <asir> Scribe: Asir S Vedamuthu
19:35:05 <asir> ScribeNick: air
19:35:12 <asir> ScribeNick: asir
19:35:20 <Bob> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Apr/0126.html
19:35:23 <asir> Meeting: WS-RA WG Conference Call
19:35:26 <asir> Chair: Bob Freund
19:35:32 <dug> zakim, who is talking?
19:35:32 <Zakim> I am sorry, dug; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now
19:36:01 <asir> Topic: Opening
19:36:30 <asir> Agenda approved!
19:37:02 <asir> Resolution: unanimously approved the minutes at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/9/04/2009-04-14.html
19:37:18 <asir> Topic: New Issues
19:37:30 <Zakim> +Yves
19:37:38 <asir> Resolution: accept all
19:37:56 <Katy> Katy has joined #ws-ra
19:37:59 <asir> Topic:  Review of Closable Issues incorporated in 2009-03-31 snapshots
19:38:40 <asir> Bob: Geoff - did Doug address your comments?
19:38:54 <asir> Geoff: yes
19:39:16 <asir> Geoff: has anyone else reviewed the editors' snapshots
19:39:50 <asir> Bob Freund, Geoff Bullen and Doug Davis
19:39:54 <asir> Anyone else?
19:40:02 <asir> [SILENCE]
19:40:26 <Zakim> +??P14
19:40:54 <DaveS> Davd Snelling joined the audio.
19:41:17 <asir> Resolution: close issues incorporated in the Mar 31st snapshots (that is, bug list in the editors' snapshot change logs)
19:41:58 <asir> Topic: Task Team 6413 Progress
19:42:13 <Geoff> We have worked on our goals. 
19:42:13 <Geoff> We have had a con-call, but did not reach consensus. 
19:42:13 <Geoff> Geoff has an action item to come back soon with new thoughts on how to move forwards.
19:43:03 <asir> Geoff: no ETA yet
19:43:21 <asir> Topic: Action Items
19:43:59 <asir> Bob motivated members to close actions
19:44:16 <Bob> whip whip
19:44:23 <asir> Topic: Issue-6739 All: Compliance section mismatch 
19:44:38 <asir> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6739
19:44:54 <asir> Doug: use boiler plate to ensure consistency
19:44:59 <asir> ... across specs
19:45:08 <asir> ... retain the current wording to ensure that nothing is lost
19:45:33 <Geoff> q+
19:45:35 <Zakim> +JeffM
19:45:35 <asir> ... hoping this is editorial
19:45:45 <Bob> ack geo
19:45:51 <asir> Geoff: no objections to the proposed direction
19:46:01 <asir> ... but it is only half finishing work
19:46:31 <asir> ... some of these specs need specific wording
19:47:07 <asir> Doug: open to members to raise additional bugs
19:47:21 <asir> s/Doug/Bob/
19:47:26 <asir> Doug: yes, yes
19:48:26 <asir> I missed the action
19:49:31 <asir> Action: Doug to (upon completion of 6739) highlight the differences across WS-RA conformance sections
19:49:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - (upon completion of 6739) highlight the differences across WS-RA conformance sections [on Doug Davis - due 2009-04-28].
19:50:50 <asir> Doug: apply the boilerplate, move spec specific contents to after the boiler plate text
19:51:32 <asir> Resolution: closed issue 6739 as proposed at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6739#c0
19:51:52 <asir> Topic: Issue-6712 Transfer: Create is ambiguous
19:52:00 <asir> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6712
19:52:07 <asir> [Doug is walking through the issue]
19:53:03 <asir> Doug: based on last night thinking, wants a flag to indicate whether the body is a rep or something else
19:53:10 <Geoff> q+
19:53:14 <asir> ... not much feedback
19:53:26 <Yves> well, you have the URI (well EPR) and the Action, why do you need more?
19:53:26 <asir> [I am specifically not recording that fragment]
19:53:30 <Bob> ack geo
19:53:46 <asir> Yves got a good question
19:54:15 <asir> Geoff: anyone of the content is okay, upto the resource to figure out, rather than Doug's interpretation
19:54:41 <asir> ... resource can support more than one type
19:54:52 <dug> q+
19:55:00 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:55:13 <asir> ... one simple way to resolve would be - clarify one and upto the resource to figure out which one
19:55:22 <asir> ... willing to provide some clarification text
19:55:22 <Zakim> -Dave_Snelling
19:55:31 <asir> ... is that a reasonable approach
19:55:31 <Katy> q+
19:55:39 <asir> ... are there any use cases for IBM interpretation
19:55:50 <Bob> ack yves
19:55:50 <asir> ... has anyone implemented the IBM interpretation
19:56:11 <Zakim> +??P0
19:56:13 <asir> Yves: create is similar to HTTP PUT and URI, we have an action URI and body
19:56:38 <asir> ... not sure I understand what Doug wants to do with additional flags
19:56:42 <Bob> ack dug
19:56:48 <asir> Doug: Yves is right
19:57:02 <asir> ... passing in an EPR to copy the contents
19:57:08 <asir> ... passing in fragement stuff
19:57:10 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-ra
19:57:16 <asir> ... does not matter what the instruction set is
19:57:26 <asir> ... add the ability to provide multiple constructors
19:57:40 <asir> ... MS interpretation, full representation | nothing
19:57:49 <asir> ... but not allow other constructors
19:57:57 <asir> ... Transfer spec allows that
19:58:16 <asir> ... forcing the users to choose one or the other translating to removing features
19:58:19 <Zakim> -Gilbert_Pilz
19:58:23 <jeffm> jeffm has joined #ws-ra
19:58:52 <asir> ... What about the 'Content-Type' header?
19:58:58 <asir> ... how to interpret the data
19:59:08 <asir> ... no hint
19:59:16 <DaveS> q+
19:59:19 <Geoff> q+
19:59:20 <asir> what about the QName of the element?
19:59:24 <Bob> ack katy
19:59:58 <asir> Katy: full representation or partial representation ("fragment")
20:00:09 <asir> ... pity to restrict the scope
20:00:11 <Bob> ack dave
20:00:19 <Yves> why not doing a null 'create' then a 'put' from a template service?
20:00:45 <Yves> seems like an optimization that has impact on the complexity of handling create
20:00:46 <asir> DaveS: if we have a resource that has exactly one behavior then okay. the problem is want to build in pieces
20:01:08 <dug> yves - why force people to jump thru hoops when transfer says you can do this today
20:01:10 <dug> ?
20:01:12 <asir> ... in theory, that is supported by the current transfer spec
20:01:28 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
20:01:29 <Bob> ack geof
20:01:41 <Katy> Dialect (or something like) enables creation of resources in other ways, for example via command if resource is very big (large policy docs)
20:02:08 <Yves> create from template looks more like a POST to me
20:02:13 <asir> Geoff: don't need a flag or dialect or something else to accomplish this
20:02:22 <Yves> so specific action
20:02:26 <asir> ... many of the comments are irrelevant to the issue
20:02:29 <dug> yves - talk in Transfer terms please  :-)
20:02:34 <Yves> dug :)
20:02:45 <Yves> like a  "other action" to me 
20:02:51 <asir> ... put allows message and defers interpretation to the resource
20:02:57 <dug> q+
20:03:22 <asir> Bob: don't have a real crisp view of what to do?
20:03:51 <Bob> ack dug
20:03:59 <asir> Doug: regardless of the point of view, we are not talking about adding new features .. no real differences
20:04:26 <asir> ... can a resource support multiple types?
20:04:31 <Geoff> q+
20:04:39 <Bob> ack geo
20:04:44 <dug> I'd like to point out that I'm talking about adding any features - just allowing for more than one type of create at the same time
20:04:57 <DaveS> DaveS's Use case summary for the minutes: A resource may need to be constructed through several steps where the resource needs to respond differently to different invocations. Dialect addresses this. The current spec is vague. A boolean (however implemented) is not rich enough.
20:05:01 <asir> Geoff: upto the resource to decide, not the client
20:05:10 <Yves> in WebDAV, COPY or MOVE are in fact doing the same thing as a PUT. Same thing here, creation of a resource is not always linked to a wst:create
20:05:16 <asir> [just like HTTP/REST]
20:05:45 <dug> but the service should be allowed to choose how many ways to expose
20:06:09 <asir> Geoff: add clarification text to better explain this
20:06:32 <DaveS> It is important that the existing implementations do not get restricted by changes we make.
20:07:41 <asir> Action: Geoff to propose CLARIFICATION text to resolve issue 6712
20:07:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Propose CLARIFICATION text to resolve issue 6712 [on Geoff Bullen - due 2009-04-28].
20:08:04 <asir> Geoff: not restriction, clarification and would like to move to consensus and not vote one versus the other
20:09:02 <asir> Issue 6712 - waiting for Action-59
20:09:17 <asir> Topic: Issue-6403 Enumeration - define policy 
20:09:29 <asir> [Doug walks through the issue/proposal]
20:10:21 <asir> Doug: interesting stuff is the filter dialectg nested assertion
20:11:04 <Geoff> q+
20:11:13 <Bob> ack geo
20:11:16 <Katy> q+
20:11:51 <asir> Geoff: no objections to using WS-Policy ... want to understand
20:12:04 <asir> ... how we use policy assertions and its implications
20:12:13 <asir> ... unclear been beat around for a while
20:12:20 <asir> s/beat/beaten/
20:12:38 <asir> ... policy as a substitute for WSDL constructs
20:12:50 <asir> ... used for instrastructure specification
20:13:05 <asir> ... are these specifications infrastructure specs (leaving that aside)
20:13:08 <dug> q+
20:13:14 <asir> ... there are some trade-offs
20:13:49 <asir> ... OTOH, want to make sure that we thought through the use cases to ensure success
20:14:01 <asir> ... how does this compose with other policy assertions defined else where
20:14:07 <asir> ... what happens?
20:14:30 <asir> ... say security assertions, per operation basis, per message basis, how would we solve that problem?
20:14:40 <asir> Doug: agrees with everything Geoff said
20:15:11 <asir> ... opened a separate issue to discuss the impact on operations | messages
20:15:48 <asir> Geoff: but these issues are overlapping, what happens when I specify the enum policy assertion
20:16:15 <asir> ... what is the relationship between the assertion and the WSDL constructs
20:16:30 <asir> Doug: agrees again!!!
20:17:04 <asir> Doug: ... may need to tweak this, want to avoid what it means to support enumeration
20:18:33 <asir> Geoff: need to clearly articulate the overlapping point and then move forward
20:18:47 <asir> ... come up some wording
20:19:03 <asir> ... that clearly articulates what needs to be resolved
20:19:18 <dug> q-
20:19:19 <Bob> ack geo
20:19:25 <Bob> ack kat
20:19:28 <asir> Katy: agrees with Geoff!!
20:19:53 <dug> no no no, Geoff agrees with Doug and Katy  :-)
20:19:53 <asir> ... problem space is quite simple
20:20:06 <asir> ... policy assertion indicates that enum MUST be used
20:20:23 <asir> ... may be it says, may be used
20:20:38 <asir> ... simple solution might be s/MUST/MAY/
20:20:39 <asir> q+
20:22:04 <asir> ... want to discuss implicit/explicit operations, how to associate policy expressions to implicit operations and messages
20:22:37 <dug> 6694: which operations are implicit
20:22:58 <asir> Katy: overlapping issues 6721 and 6694
20:23:08 <asir> s/6721/are 6721/
20:23:12 <Katy> q+
20:23:17 <Bob> ack asir
20:24:02 <dug> Asir agrees with Doug
20:25:05 <asir> Asir: elaborate on filter dialect policy assertion?
20:26:30 <asir> Doug: uses a QName = uri of the filter dialect, local name filter dialect
20:26:47 <dug> q+
20:26:48 <Bob> ack katy
20:26:51 <asir> ... to leverage policy intersection specified in WS-Policy
20:27:14 <Bob> ack dug
20:27:31 <asir> [katy, may i request you to type your comment]
20:27:44 <Vikas> Vikas has joined #ws-ra
20:28:24 <asir> Doug: started with basic functionality, made sure that the proposal can be augmented
20:28:53 <asir> Bob: where are we?
20:28:54 <DaveS> q+
20:29:04 <asir> q+ Geoff
20:29:09 <Bob> ack dave
20:29:23 <asir> DaveS: move forward
20:29:25 <Bob> ack geo
20:29:46 <asir> Geoff: refine some language around what we are resolving and what we are not resolving
20:29:58 <asir> ... doug took an action to describe the situation
20:30:11 <dug> The resolution of this issue does not preclude us from modifying this policy based on issue 6694.
20:30:24 <asir> ... would like to work together
20:30:26 <dug> +1 bob
20:30:27 <DaveS> +1
20:30:58 <asir> [Bob is typing a proposal]
20:31:24 <Bob> resolve 6403 with the proposal in bugzilla subject to future consideration as may be required in the resolutions for issues 6721 and 6694
20:32:18 <Katy> q+
20:32:36 <Bob> ack katy
20:32:40 <asir> Geoff: not ready yet, there are a couple of issues outstanding, move forward, solving 6403 does not resolve those open issues
20:33:34 <asir> Katy: issue 1 - how to associate policy expressions to implicit operations | messages
20:34:16 <Geoff> q+
20:34:31 <Katy> A endpoint should include a filterdialect policy assertion for each of the filter dialects that it supports.
20:34:46 <dug> +1
20:34:50 <asir> [where is this being inserted?]
20:35:00 <dug> end of:  /wsenp:WSEnumeration/wsp:Policy/x:FilterDialect
20:35:37 <dug> text
20:36:13 <Bob> ack geo
20:36:43 <asir> Bob: are we open to resolve issue 6403 with the amendment from Katy and Bob's statement (need to resolve other issues)
20:37:02 <asir> Geoff: request another week to review the proposal
20:37:25 <DaveS> +1
20:37:40 <asir> [Bob is inserting Katy's amendment to 6403 proposal]
20:37:41 <DaveS> To the insertion into bugzz...
20:38:33 <asir> everyone is playing with BugZilla!
20:38:42 <asir> Collision .. oops oops oops
20:38:52 <asir> Doug messed up Bob's entry :-)
20:39:48 <asir> Bob baptizes 6403 with an #
20:40:08 <asir> Topic: Issue-6401 WS-Eventing Notifications violates WS-I BP
20:40:45 <asir> Gil is absent
20:40:49 <asir> Skip?
20:41:20 <asir> Bob: any questions on the proposal, has been marinating (but not ready for grill)
20:41:25 <asir> ... let's start next week
20:41:45 <asir> Topic: Issue-6432 WS-Eventing Push delivery mode does not work when the  
20:41:45 <asir> subscriber is not addressable
20:42:02 <asir> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6432 
20:42:10 <asir> 'THIS' proposal
20:42:38 <asir> Doug: re-baptizes 'PUSH' as 'EPR' it is
20:43:01 <asir> s/'EPR' it is/'EPR IT IS'/
20:43:11 <Geoff> q+
20:43:18 <asir> Bob: where are we?
20:43:19 <Bob> ack geo
20:43:45 <asir> Geoff: wearing a non-conflationary hat (what is that?)
20:44:31 <asir> ... proposal uses an EPR mode, that is not specific enough
20:44:42 <asir> ... gone backwards and forwards
20:44:47 <dug> q+
20:44:51 <asir> ... you need to parse the EPR to figure out what is going on
20:45:14 <asir> ... parsing an EPR in an eventing code bit is the right thing to do
20:45:22 <dug> I have not added any new requirements for parsing the EPR by changing the name of the Mode
20:45:25 <Bob> q+
20:45:33 <Bob> ack dug
20:45:38 <asir> s/is the right/is not the right/
20:46:04 <Geoff> q+
20:46:08 <Bob> ack bob
20:46:27 <asir> Doug: changing the mode from push to epr based does not say that you need to parse EPRs
20:46:53 <DaveS> q+
20:47:41 <asir> Bob: what does asynchronous mean?
20:47:44 <Bob> ack geo
20:48:18 <asir> Geoff: by using an EPR rather than something more specific, you are actually loosing important semantics
20:48:31 <dug> q+
20:48:51 <asir> ... no need to look into an EPR
20:49:16 <asir> ... Geoff claims written evidence on teh WG mailing list :-)
20:49:19 <dug> name change alone doesn't do that 
20:49:23 <asir> s/teh/the/
20:50:47 <dug> if the eventing layers need to know MC is being used then it can look at the EPR just as easily as the Mode URI.
20:50:51 <asir> ... relying on EPR means the eventing layer is left behind, does not know what delivery semantics are used
20:50:57 <asir> or requested by a subscriber
20:51:41 <asir> Bob: which parts of the proposal conflates?
20:51:59 <asir> Geoff: renaming is the concern
20:52:05 <Bob> ack dave
20:52:53 <asir> DaveS: nothing in the proposal changes the semantics of the submitted eventing
20:53:05 <asir> ... use the default semantics
20:53:11 <asir> ... use the push mode
20:53:31 <Bob> ack dug
20:53:47 <asir> Doug: what if we rename it to default mode
20:54:07 <Geoff> q+
20:54:07 <asir> I heard Dave S support that
20:54:53 <asir> Bob: Antoine asked - what happens a subscriber behind a firewall is using that
20:55:07 <DaveS> q+
20:55:19 <asir> ... we need to dev a proposal for that
20:55:21 <Bob> ack geo
20:55:37 <li> q+
20:55:43 <asir> Geoff: push mode need to retained, create a new mode, perhaps Pull MC
20:55:55 <asir> ... that woulld be a more viable solution
20:56:15 <Bob> ack dave
20:57:38 <Bob> acl li
20:57:41 <asir> DaveS: two choices - (a) get lost (b) change pushmode -> eprmode
20:57:42 <Bob> ack li
20:58:21 <asir> Li: correctly describe the mode and then let the users figure out what to do
20:58:32 <Geoff> q+
20:58:37 <asir> ... could use MC even with addressible EPRs
20:58:54 <asir> ... would like to define a new mode
20:59:08 <asir> [Bob is auctioning the last 60 seconds]
20:59:26 <asir> ... would like to retain the current Push mode and define a new mode
20:59:29 <Bob> ack geo
20:59:40 <asir> Geoff: is tied with 6692, no doubts
20:59:49 <DaveS> Daves Clarification for the minutes: Option A) close with no action and tell Antoine to use WS-Addressing to do it, or B) provide guidance in the specification and clarify the name of PushMode to be something less specfic.
20:59:58 <asir> ... the current proposal conflates both push and pull
21:03:25 <dug> Geoff - you on IM?
21:04:17 <Zakim> -Geoff
21:04:18 <Zakim> -fmaciel
21:04:19 <Zakim> -Vikas
21:04:20 <Zakim> -li
21:04:20 <Zakim> -Yves
21:04:21 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:04:22 <Zakim> -??P0
21:04:29 <Zakim> -katy
21:04:37 <Bob> Bob adminishes folks to correct test scribed now while it is still fresh in their minds
21:04:42 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
21:04:51 <Yves> rrsagent, draft minutes
21:04:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-ws-ra-minutes.html Yves
21:04:52 <Bob> rrsagent, generate minutes
21:04:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/21-ws-ra-minutes.html Bob
21:04:54 <Zakim> -JeffM
21:09:54 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, Doug_Davis, in WS_WSRA()3:30PM
21:09:56 <Zakim> WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
21:10:00 <Zakim> Attendees were Bob_Freund, Doug_Davis, [Microsoft], +1.408.970.aaaa, fmaciel, +1.908.696.aabb, Asir, Gilbert_Pilz, +1.571.262.aacc, katy, Vikas, Ashok_Malhotra, li, Tom_Rutt, Yves,
21:10:02 <Zakim> ... Dave_Snelling, JeffM