19:21:34 RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra 19:21:34 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-ws-ra-irc 19:21:36 RRSAgent, make logs public 19:21:36 Zakim has joined #ws-ra 19:21:38 Zakim, this will be WSRA 19:21:38 ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 9 minutes 19:21:39 Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference 19:21:39 Date: 07 July 2009 19:21:48 Bob has joined #ws-ra 19:23:29 trackbot, start telecon 19:23:31 RRSAgent, make logs public 19:23:33 Zakim, this will be WSRA 19:23:33 ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 7 minutes 19:23:34 Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference 19:23:34 Date: 07 July 2009 19:24:40 Geoff has joined #ws-ra 19:25:42 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/0003.html 19:25:54 chair: Bob Freund 19:26:19 dug has joined #ws-ra 19:26:40 WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started 19:27:25 Ram has joined #ws-ra 19:27:29 gpilz has joined #ws-ra 19:27:43 Vikas has joined #ws-ra 19:29:17 does anyone else hear an echo? 19:29:28 Ashok has joined #ws-ra 19:29:34 Wu has joined #ws-ra 19:30:29 TomRutt has joined #ws-ra 19:31:32 he who smelt it dealt it ;-) 19:31:42 DaveS has joined #ws-ra 19:35:04 Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra 19:35:05 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/0003.html 19:35:06 TomRutt has left #ws-ra 19:35:48 scribe: Vikas 19:37:21 Agenda: Agenda accepted without objection. 19:37:35 RESOLUTION: No objections. The minutes from 2009-06-30 meeting has been approved. 19:37:59 Topic : 6401 19:38:19 q+ 19:39:12 Wu: Requirment document published in group. 19:39:22 ack gp 19:39:42 q+ 19:39:45 q+ 19:39:52 q+ 19:40:14 ack dug 19:40:17 Gil: Why do we need a seperate BP compliant issue. 19:40:26 Wu: Clarified 19:40:56 asir has joined #ws-ra 19:41:38 ack geo 19:41:52 Dug: Ask for clarification on the uddi compliance part of the requirement. 19:42:23 ack gp 19:43:07 Geoff: BP compliance should be fine. 19:43:29 q+ 19:43:40 ack asir 19:44:17 Asir: Allow everyone some time to look at the requirement. 19:45:09 Bob: If any one has issue. 19:45:47 Bob: Wu and Gil work offline to resolve the issue on the requirement part. 19:46:24 Ram has joined #ws-ra 19:46:25 Action: Wu and Gil. Work on the requirment clarification. 19:46:25 Created ACTION-79 - And Gil. Work on the requirment clarification. [on wu chou - due 2009-07-14]. 19:46:33 Proposal for issues 6413+6975+7014: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/0006.html 19:46:56 Topic: 6413+6975+7014 19:46:57 the mother of all issues! 19:47:04 s/issues/proposals/ 19:48:37 Dug: (and Ram) Quick walk though the proposal. 19:49:07 s/though/through 19:53:26 Bob: Do any one need more time to review the proposal 19:54:11 q+ 19:54:56 ack dug 19:57:38 q+ 19:58:03 q+ 19:58:16 ack asir 19:58:32 q+ 19:58:42 so why not change "Use of this URI indicates that the contents of the Delete element should be processed as specified by the WS-Fragment [WS-Fragment] specification. to "Use of this URI indicates that the contents of the Delete element MUST be processed as specified by the WS-Fragment [WS-Fragment] specification." 19:58:44 q+ 19:58:50 ack tom 19:59:29 +1 - for all OPs 20:00:21 ack ashok 20:00:32 Vikas1 has joined #ws-ra 20:01:05 ack gpi 20:02:30 Bob: Any objection to the adoption to the change TomR suggested in IRC 20:02:47 No objection raised 20:02:49 q+ to ask a question 20:03:35 Bob: Any objection to the other three parts in the proposal 20:04:20 q+ 20:04:25 "The Working Group may organize the structure of the specifications into one or more documents." 20:05:09 ack asir 20:05:09 asir, you wanted to ask a question 20:05:28 geicko? 20:05:52 Bob: Clarify with Yves on the WS-Frag within the charted of the group. 20:06:10 ack dug 20:06:11 Yves: Should be fine 20:07:26 Vow, that is a big one! 20:07:38 No objection on the proposal 6413+6975+7014 20:07:49 3 issues in one day, I think that's a WS-RA record 20:08:20 should we just finish now? It can't get any better can it? 20:08:22 Resolution: No objection on the proposal 6413+6975+7014 proposed by Dug/Ram 20:08:29 Resolution: proposal as amended by Tom Rutt's text, to be applied to all operation types 20:09:53 Action: Dug : Open a new issue initial workign WS-Frag spec. 20:09:53 Created ACTION-80 - : Open a new issue initial workign WS-Frag spec. [on Doug Davis - due 2009-07-14]. 20:10:10 Dave S will alos help draft the Frag spec. 20:10:18 thanks Dave 20:10:18 Action: Ram and Dug: Generate a proposal for WS-frag Spec 20:10:18 Created ACTION-81 - And Dug: Generate a proposal for WS-frag Spec [on Ram Jeyaraman - due 2009-07-14]. 20:10:55 Tpoic: Issue http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7039 20:11:11 s/Tpoic/Topic 20:11:17 q+ 20:11:39 ack geo 20:11:58 Asir: Ask for another week. 20:12:09 s/Ask/Asked/ 20:12:12 (last week) 20:12:26 s/Asked/last week, Asked/ 20:12:48 Bob: Any objection on the proposal 1 20:13:11 4 issues in 43 minutes 20:13:13 Resolution: No objection, Issue 7039 resolved with proposal 1 20:13:31 Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6692 20:14:10 summary http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/0002.html 20:14:37 q+ 20:14:40 q+ 20:15:00 additional comments by Wu http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/0004.html 20:15:29 ack geo 20:16:02 Bob: Are we ok with the slicing of the issue. 20:16:29 Geoff: Concern with use of extension point. 20:17:07 q+ 20:17:14 q+ 20:18:39 Geoff: Concern specifically with the semantics a possible pull mode. 20:21:08 ack gpi 20:22:24 +1 the wse:NotifyTo is the "default extension" 20:23:44 what is out of scope for this WG? 20:23:57 asir - so? 20:24:11 if wse:NotifyTo works for both then that's fine - nothing more is needed to be said 20:25:07 ack dug 20:27:16 ack wu 20:27:35 Gil: Support the proposal. 20:27:43 Dug: Just required some tweaking to delivery element description. 20:27:52 q+ 20:28:02 Wu: Support Geoff concern... 20:29:05 q+ 20:30:40 ...semantically structure extension using policy. 20:30:46 ....the wse:NotifyTo element MUST be present and be the EndpointReference to which notifications are sent. 20:30:52 ack dug 20:31:37 q+ 20:31:39 q+ 20:32:28
  • li has joined #ws-ra 20:33:04 bob - I'd like to ask him a follow on 20:33:10 q+ 20:34:29 q+ 20:35:15 what is the point of this question? 20:35:16 queue 20:36:08 ack gpi 20:36:54 ack wu 20:37:27 ack tom 20:38:12 Wu: ....if you allow arbitrary xml, it can be issue. 20:38:33 tom:AltNotifyTo would need to say how it works with wse:NotifyTo - no biggie 20:38:43 ack geo 20:39:08 This specification defines only a default asynchronous method of delivery for notifications from the event source to event sink.  Other methods or combination of methods may be defined through the use of delivery extensions. 20:39:15 q+ 20:39:50 q+ 20:41:46 q+ 20:42:10 "...the EndpointReference to which notifications are sent." 20:42:17 ack dug 20:42:31 not necessarily 20:42:47 indeed :-) 20:43:27 Geoff: When you add new element…it may change behavior altogether…not clear how these elements interact with other. 20:44:41 q+ 20:44:55 Dug: This is not a delivery specific problem. Need to be handled by subscription manager. 20:45:39 ack gp 20:46:43 Gil: Every spec defines extensibility point…idea of having arbitrary xmls…is common across any ws* spec. 20:47:13
  • q+ 20:47:40 The semantics of including notifyTo along need to be clarified 20:47:43 ack tom 20:48:21 yes there might 20:48:28 wse:NotifyTo is just the default extension 20:48:57 Both SOAP and WS-Policy processing models did not introduce any default semantics for extensions, everything is explicit 20:49:13 so.. s/default/well-defined/ 20:49:43 ack wu 20:50:01 q+ 20:50:08 Doug - not sure why you are modifying my statements :-) 20:50:17 I didn't - i was clarifying mine 20:50:41 but the sed script applies to the most recent one :-) 20:50:53 q+ 20:51:17 we need ot clarify the semantics of having a notifyTo along in the delivery element. Any extension has to explain how it differs from the default semantics 20:51:41 Wu: default is push, and xml is added to modify it….need to know when the default is off. 20:52:02 s/alonge/alone/ 20:52:15 q- 20:52:20 q+ 20:52:51 Bob: To Wu are you proposing all implementer should support policy. 20:53:11 ack li 20:55:12 ack dug 20:55:32 F2F agreement is at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6692#c6 20:55:44 + + + + 20:57:03 if there is no PUSH then pushWithAck can fail 20:57:14 well .. subscriber shall not lie! 20:57:19 because it knows that that it is no longer push 20:58:16 + + 20:58:17 well .. one of the concerns that we addressed to avoid combinatorial explosion is not to use compund names 20:58:28 instead of Pushwithack .. you all wanted Push + Ack 20:58:33 how does Ack know if it is a push or a pull? 20:58:38 q+ 20:59:38 I don't see how we can close 6692 if there is such a basic disconnect between the two groups 21:00:02 q+ 21:01:19 ack gp 21:01:25 ack wu 21:01:31 ack asir 21:01:54 gpilz has left #ws-ra 21:01:57
  • qnames is a refactoring of mode uri 21:02:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-ws-ra-minutes.html Yves 21:02:33 rrsagent, generate minutes 21:02:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-ws-ra-minutes.html Bob 21:02:40 asir explained that there is no basic disconnect. the outstanding issue is to figure out how to represent the default behaviour - explicit or implicit 21:02:51 WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended 21:02:53 Attendees were 21:03:01 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-ws-ra-minutes.html Yves 21:03:05 it appears that the implicit representation collides with the extensibility model 21:03:35 note that asir's last two comments were made after the conclusionoof the conference call 21:03:39 rrsagent, generate minutes 21:03:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-ws-ra-minutes.html Bob 21:05:13 test has joined #ws-ra