19:14:48 RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra 19:14:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/19-ws-ra-irc 19:14:50 RRSAgent, make logs public 19:14:50 Zakim has joined #ws-ra 19:14:52 Zakim, this will be WSRA 19:14:52 ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 16 minutes 19:14:53 Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference 19:14:53 Date: 19 May 2009 19:17:04 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009May/0155.html 19:18:39 WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started 19:18:46 +[IPcaller] 19:19:00 zakim, [IP is Bob 19:19:00 +Bob; got it 19:20:21

li has joined #ws-ra 19:22:57 Ashok has joined #ws-ra 19:24:17 + +0208234aaaa 19:24:18 TomRutt has joined #ws-ra 19:24:55 Geoff has joined #ws-ra 19:25:27 Katy has joined #ws-ra 19:26:28 zakim, katy is +0208 19:26:28 sorry, Bob, I do not recognize a party named 'katy' 19:26:32 +[Microsoft] 19:26:53 dug has joined #ws-ra 19:27:34 +[IBM] 19:28:17 + +0125669aabb 19:29:23 +Tom_Rutt 19:30:11 +Wu_Chou 19:30:43 + +1.408.274.aacc 19:30:53 +Gilbert 19:31:04 +Ashok_Malhotra 19:31:11 gpilz has joined #ws-ra 19:31:18 fmaciel has joined #ws-ra 19:31:34 +Yves 19:32:48 + +0759029aadd 19:34:26 Scribe: Li Li 19:35:13

TOPIC: current agenda 19:35:21 agenda; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009May/0155.html 19:35:52 - +0759029aadd 19:36:03

geoff has a new finished AI for the agenda? 19:36:13

agenda accepted 19:36:20 If its Tuesday this must be Belgium 19:36:25

TOPIC: approval of minutes 19:36:39

... minutes approved w/o objection 19:36:39 asir has joined #ws-ra 19:36:57 Wu has joined #ws-ra 19:37:11

TOPIC: f2f schedule 19:37:49 + +0759029aaee 19:38:08

geoff: when to indicate decision? 19:38:19

bob: we'll discuss it today 19:38:55

bob: hope to get one of mode and t/rt merge clean in f2f 19:39:45

TOPIC: snapshot 19:40:23

bob: how about next week for snapshot review? 19:40:27

geoff: yes 19:40:43

TOPIC: 6401 team 19:41:33

gil: consentrate on relation between raw and wrap notifications 19:41:50

try to schedule a call to go over it 19:42:08

bob: any fundamental issue? 19:42:39

gil: no, more one detail... 19:43:01

bob: estimate of time? 19:43:12

gil: we're still brainstorming 19:43:48

TOPIC: consolidation of mode proposals 19:44:05 q+ 19:44:45

geoff: they are on wiki, runtime policy for doing mode? 19:44:54 I think chris was talking about using a namedPolicy 19:45:51

chris: explain about how to use policy in subscribe 19:45:58 ack gpi 19:46:32

gil: wiki lists all choices so far - three options 19:47:36

...chris pointed out that there is a way to simplify policy intersection 19:47:53 q+ 19:48:11

as a choice to make during deployment time, which may work for small devices 19:49:14 scroll down to the PolicyReference stuff: http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-policy-attach/#ExternalPolicyAttachment 19:49:21

chris: we can profile policy to restrict its complexity, and use that policy to replace mode 19:49:22 ack asir 19:49:51

asir: someone needs to make a proposal and show how it works on small devices 19:50:25

dug: chris should create it on the wiki? 19:51:22 ACTION: Dug and Ashok to write up a constrained policy mode proposal 19:51:22 Created ACTION-65 - And Ashok to write up a constrained policy mode proposal [on Doug Davis - due 2009-05-26]. 19:51:43

TOPIC: new issues 19:52:43

any objection to openning them? 19:53:05

katy: 6920 missed 19:53:17

bob: objection to it? 19:53:22

no objections 19:56:02

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6429 19:56:09 Topic: Issue-6429 19:57:00 zakim, who is noisy? 19:57:12 Bob, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Wu_Chou (44%) 19:57:56 6429 was updated with the agreement from Gil 19:58:53 I think this is the latest: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009May/0149.html 19:59:28 Li: As far as we can see, we seemed reached concensus on issue 6429 on standard wrapped interface 20:00:54

bob: any objection 20:00:59 Vow! 20:01:10

bob: no object and 6429 is resolved 20:01:30 Thanks to Li for driving consensus on 6429!! 20:01:34

TOPIC: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6907 20:03:01

bob: any objection...no objection 20:03:29

TOPIC: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6849 20:04:52

bob: objection to resolving...no objection and resolved 20:05:20

TOPIC: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6674 20:06:10

gil: no proposal but it's obvious for editors 20:06:31

bob: do we need detail proposal? 20:07:00

geoff: ok with it 20:07:14

bob: objection to resolving it...no object and resolved. 20:07:43

TOPIC: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6694 20:08:11 q+ 20:08:19 - +0759029aaee 20:08:51

q+ 20:08:54 q+ 20:09:25 ack gpil 20:10:00 q+ 20:11:11 + +0759029aaff 20:11:15 Li: the purpose is to hide some operations from the tool. Can we have two set of WSDLs, one for advertise services, and one for generating code 20:11:31 +q 20:11:37 ack li 20:11:38

gil: agree with dug and explain some use cases regarding ws-e 20:11:41 q+ 20:11:45 ack geoff 20:12:21

geoff: have concerns about losing info on operations by using policy 20:12:49

...such as security 20:13:38 ack katy 20:13:41

geoff: using transfer to get may have different security requirements 20:13:46 q+ to ask a question of clarification (when appropriate) 20:13:51 - +0759029aaff 20:14:16 q- 20:14:18

katy: implicit doesn't exclude explict 20:14:49

...security may be addressed by ws-policy, some pattern may be created. 20:15:00 ack asir 20:15:00 asir, you wanted to ask a question of clarification (when appropriate) 20:15:11 q+ 20:15:14

asir: drop all wsdl but use policy? 20:15:45

dug: yes but not concrete yet 20:15:47 Thank you recognizing a Microsoft use case! 20:15:52 + +0759029aagg 20:16:03

...geoff raises some valid use cases 20:17:12

...rm is indicated by policy assertions, which may be a pattern to follow, we can investigate them 20:17:15 ack gpi 20:17:24 -Bob 20:17:27 q+ 20:17:30 q- 20:17:34 we lost bob 20:17:37 oh no 20:17:43 oops 20:17:46 Yves? 20:18:05 +??P1 20:18:17 I am back 20:18:21 Cool1 20:18:23 Cool! 20:19:04 q+ 20:19:14

gil: attaching policy to operations worth more thinking... 20:19:59 ack katy 20:20:13 q+ 20:20:23

katy: 6721 is related to find patterns to attach policy assertions 20:20:46 q+ 20:21:07

katy: RM can be used to study our approach 20:21:12 ack dug 20:21:55 an app-level WSDL, a infrastructure WSDL, a Notification WSDL . . . 20:21:57 ? 20:22:23

dug: explore Li's idea, using mex to retrieve application wsdl 20:22:27 ack asir 20:22:58 and retrieve implicit operation's wsdl 20:23:23 q+ 20:23:36 q- 20:23:38

asir: our assertions define security features, define interrelation between domains 20:23:48

new policy has to consider such compositions 20:23:52 q+ 20:24:42 q- 20:24:49 Here is a link on how to think about RM as an example .... 20:24:50 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-ws-policy-guidelines-20071112/#interrelated-domains 20:25:10 ACTION: Li and Dug to explore proposals and start a thread on this topic 20:25:10 Created ACTION-66 - And Dug to explore proposals and start a thread on this topic [on Li Li - due 2009-05-26]. 20:25:27 ack bob 20:26:24

daves: composing operations from different app into one port type 20:26:28 q+ 20:26:38

...what is our strategy to deal with it? 20:26:46 ack asir 20:26:51

asir: wsdl doesn't mention any rules 20:27:17

...only ws-policy attachment has some rule, but only to wsdl 1.1 not wsdl 2.0 20:27:37 q+ 20:27:56 ack gpil 20:28:12

gil: i caution using ws-rm because it has some constraints 20:28:22 +1 to exercise caution! 20:28:59

... that do not apply to transfer 20:29:15

...we need to be careful not to over generalize 20:29:50 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009May/0159.html 20:29:53

TOPIC: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6724 20:31:08

dug: add an appendix to illustrate how to use transfer on subscription 20:31:12 q+ 20:31:33 ack geoff 20:31:49

geoff: it's non-specific and good 20:32:14

...all properties returned by get? 20:32:24

dug: not necessary 20:32:42

geoff: what if you can't put all properties you get'ed 20:33:05

dug: that's valid but is generic to ws-t 20:33:20

geoff: is this a good use of ws-t? 20:33:23 q+ 20:33:24

dug: i think so 20:34:06

geoff: need more careful design 20:34:53

dug: ws-e has read-only properties but should be left to ws-t to decide 20:36:21

geoff: what about optional headers and policy 20:36:36

... how to use ws-t to modify them? 20:36:52 ack gpi 20:37:27

gil: it's too simplistic to say not puttable is just a transfer issue 20:37:29 q+ 20:38:19

...we are profiling ws-t if we define which field is writable? 20:38:39 ack dug 20:38:40

...it's an extension to ws-t 20:39:12

dug: it's up to the extension to decide which properties are writable 20:39:44

...it's not a profile but a use case of ws-t 20:39:55 - +0759029aagg 20:40:07

...we need to improve ws-t to cover it if necessary 20:40:09 zakim, who is noisy? 20:40:29 gpilz, listening for 15 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IBM] (2%) 20:40:44

bob: leave it and move on? 20:41:17 q+ 20:41:37 ack geof 20:41:39

geoff: still thinking and agree with gil 20:42:15

...not convinced yet and need more time to think 20:42:31

...need more words to clarify it 20:42:38 q+ 20:42:45

bob: more time to think? 20:43:03 ack gpil 20:43:08 q+ for a totally unrelated question - after this issue 20:43:32

gil: i create a new issue on what happend if server is unable to honor a put request 20:43:47

asir: action not supported? 20:44:49 the problem is not the action 20:44:54 it's what you tried to do with the action 20:45:05 another put with different data may have succeeded 20:45:28

dug: format element should be optional 20:45:43 folks agreed 20:45:49

...it's forgotten by editors only 20:45:51 q- 20:47:05

TOPIC: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6712 20:47:44

AI 69 assigned to geoff 20:48:20

goeff: ...looking for his AI... 20:48:56 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009May/0078.html 20:49:50

asir: geoff you submitted a proposal 20:49:57

...on may 5th 20:50:22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009May/0010.html 20:51:16

geoff: the latest discussion is that i still try to understand why we we need it 20:51:22 q+ 20:52:10

...i think both are valid resoruce rep and i don't understand the issue 20:53:05

...i control what rep a resouce has and i don't understand what's missing 20:53:49 q+ 20:53:54

dug: there is a baseline use of ws-t, you send xml to update resource 20:54:15 ack dug 20:54:30 basic interop = first child element is service- or provider-specific; service or provider is in control 20:54:34

...the server needs to separate instruction from rep itself 20:55:03 think about HTTP PUT or POST 20:55:08

...if using any, this valid use case is not supported 20:55:24 ack geoff 20:55:37 q+ 20:55:38 q+ 20:55:42

geoff: there is an assumption that rep is inside an wrapper element 20:56:24

...there is no place to say the wrapper is an instruction and the children is rep 20:56:39

...resoruce defines any level of wrappers 20:56:54

s/resoruce/resource/ 20:57:11 ack dug 20:57:16

...it's up to the resource to decide not the spec. 20:57:43

dug: literal resource rep is the key. 20:57:52 q+ 20:58:39

dug: first-child element should be the rep 20:58:42 am confused ... Transfer submission says, 'The first child element of the s:Body element MUST NOT be omitted. The contents of this element are service-specific, and MAY contain the literal initial resource representation, a representation of the constructor for the resource, or other instructions for creating the resource.' 20:59:00 ack gpil 20:59:31

gil: server is willing to accept anything as resource rep, in that case, there is no difference. 21:00:22 Bob - e.g. provide an EPR to copy the resource from 21:00:30

...we need to add attribute or constraint to separate instruction from resource rep 21:00:43 ack geoff 21:01:01 -Ashok_Malhotra 21:01:05

geoff: you define "literal" but spec doesn't define it 21:01:08 -Gilbert 21:01:20 are people dropping on purpose? 21:01:39

...resource can define its rep 21:02:00

...you can use xs:any if the resource can tell the difference 21:02:16

...it's the receiver's problem, not sender 21:02:30

asir: close with minor clarification 21:03:01

bob: please propose the clarification 21:03:17

dug: geoff please define "literal rep" 21:04:00

bob: any correction to irc? 21:04:04 -Wu_Chou 21:04:05

bye 21:04:05 -Tom_Rutt 21:04:06 -??P1 21:04:08 -[Microsoft] 21:04:08 -[IBM] 21:04:09 -Yves 21:04:10 - +1.408.274.aacc 21:04:47 gpilz has left #ws-ra 21:04:56 - +0208234aaaa 21:05:12 - +0125669aabb 21:05:14 WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended 21:05:15 Attendees were [IPcaller], Bob, +0208234aaaa, [Microsoft], [IBM], +0125669aabb, Tom_Rutt, Wu_Chou, +1.408.274.aacc, Gilbert, Ashok_Malhotra, Yves, +0759029aadd, +0759029aaee, 21:05:17 ... +0759029aaff, +0759029aagg 21:07:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/19-ws-ra-minutes.html Yves 21:10:48 Bob has joined #ws-ra 21:11:00 rrsagent, generate minutes 21:11:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/19-ws-ra-minutes.html Bob 23:20:38 TomRutt has left #ws-ra