IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-08-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:19:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:19:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:19:17 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:19:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
19:19:19 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:19:19 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
19:19:20 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:19:20 [trackbot]
Date: 25 August 2009
19:19:53 [PaulN]
PaulN has joined #ws-ra
19:23:44 [Bob]
Bob has joined #ws-ra
19:23:59 [Bob]
trackbot, start telecon
19:24:01 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
19:24:03 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:24:03 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
19:24:04 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:24:04 [trackbot]
Date: 25 August 2009
19:27:12 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
19:27:19 [Zakim]
19:27:37 [Bob]
chair: Bob Freund
19:27:42 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.849.aaaa
19:28:03 [Zakim]
+ +1.207.827.aabb
19:28:04 [Bob]
zakim, aaaa is Sreed
19:28:05 [Zakim]
+Sreed; got it
19:28:07 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
19:28:27 [Bob]
zakim, aabb is paulN
19:28:27 [Zakim]
+paulN; got it
19:28:55 [Zakim]
19:29:27 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
19:29:35 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
19:30:16 [Zakim]
19:30:35 [Zakim]
19:31:20 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:31:35 [fmaciel]
fmaciel has joined #ws-ra
19:31:53 [Zakim]
19:32:11 [Zakim]
19:32:12 [Zakim]
19:32:25 [Zakim]
19:32:50 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
19:33:42 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
19:33:58 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
19:34:11 [Zakim]
19:34:11 [Zakim]
19:34:25 [dug]
hey bob
19:35:24 [Tom_Rutt]
Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
19:35:29 [Zakim]
19:35:42 [Zakim]
19:35:43 [fmaciel]
fmaciel has joined #ws-ra
19:35:50 [Bob]
scribe: Li Li
19:35:57 [Bob]
scribenick: Li
19:35:57 [Zakim]
19:36:03 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
19:36:09 [Zakim]
19:36:23 [Sreed]
Sreed has joined #ws-ra
19:36:49 [li]
TOPIC: agenda
19:37:39 [Bob]
minutes link
19:37:54 [li]
TOPIC: approval of minutes
19:38:11 [li]
minutes accepted
19:38:45 [DaveS]
Thank you Yves
19:39:55 [li]
TOPIC: snapshot of mex and rt
19:40:17 [li]
ram has some comments
19:40:58 [li]
dug and ram figure out which comments
19:41:22 [dug]
19:43:45 [li]
snapshots of mex and rt accepted
19:44:38 [li]
TOPIC: review action items
19:45:13 [dug]
19:45:36 [li]
TOPIC: progress on ws-frag
19:45:40 [dug]
19:46:09 [li]
ram: needs a few more days to polish
19:47:10 [li]
bob: fpwd needs to be out by sept (next week) in order to hold out schedule
19:47:22 [li]
ram: that's acceptable
19:47:47 [li]
19:49:16 [li]
bob: objection to proposal?
19:49:35 [li]
7365 resolved as proposed
19:50:00 [li]
19:50:11 [dug]
19:52:09 [li]
dug: explain issue and proposal
19:52:18 [dug]
** New dialect
19:52:20 [dug]
definitions MUST include sufficient information for proper application.
19:52:21 [dug]
For example, it would need to include the context (which data) over which
19:52:23 [dug]
the filter operates. ***
19:53:34 [Zakim]
19:53:54 [asir]
q+ to ask a question
19:54:14 [Zakim]
19:54:15 [li]
bob: append proposed text to spec?
19:54:19 [Bob]
ack asir
19:54:19 [Zakim]
asir, you wanted to ask a question
19:54:52 [li]
asir: when does context change?
19:55:28 [li]
dug: context of xpath changes from envelope to event data
19:55:29 [asir]
q+ to follow up
19:55:50 [li]
context may change for other uri too, like actionURI
19:55:51 [Bob]
ack asir
19:55:51 [Zakim]
asir, you wanted to follow up
19:56:10 [gpilz]
19:56:24 [li]
asir: i don't recall discussing change of context being discussed
19:56:37 [Bob]
ack gp
19:56:52 [dug]
"... a new dialect might be defined to support filtering based on data not included in the notification message itself."
19:56:54 [dug]
19:57:20 [li]
gil: generic use of xpath is insufficient as it doesn't tell the context
19:57:42 [li]
therefore, ws-e needs a new uri to convey the context
19:58:20 [li]
asir: it's new to me that uri indicates context
19:58:24 [Bob]
ack dug
19:58:59 [Tom_Rutt]
19:59:27 [asir]
19:59:30 [Bob]
ack tom
19:59:45 [li]
dug: filter always needs context
19:59:59 [li]
tom: do we need context to complicate thing?
20:00:17 [Bob]
ack asir
20:00:19 [Zakim]
20:00:22 [li]
dug: yes, we have filter on action, topic, etc. beside just event data itself
20:00:28 [dug]
20:00:51 [Bob]
ack dug
20:01:12 [li]
asir: uri needs to point to stable xpath
20:01:43 [li]
dug: maybe to separate flexibility to another issue
20:02:15 [asir]
20:02:16 [li]
bob: we can define a uri for backward compability
20:02:25 [Bob]
ack asir
20:02:31 [gpilz]
20:02:53 [Bob]
ack gp
20:03:13 [li]
asir: it's ok if this is a simple case
20:03:15 [asir]
asir: if we were to define our own namespace name then this would be a unique case and not set any precedence
20:03:44 [li]
gil: we have to do it as gil explained the use cases
20:03:58 [li]
20:05:21 [li]
asir: it's not clear what is replaced
20:05:34 [dug]
20:06:09 [li]
dug: two parts: one is to swap out uri; the other is the text
20:07:27 [dug]
next text is in:
20:07:37 [dug]
20:08:36 [li]
figuring out the consolidated proposal...
20:09:35 [li]
asir: make uri to xpath 1.0?
20:09:55 [li]
daves: a different uri for xpath 2.0 then?
20:09:55 [asir]
Here is the draft proposal
20:09:56 [asir]
1. Append to Section '[Body]/wse:Subscribe/wse:Filter/@Dialect
20:09:56 [asir]
20:09:56 [asir]
*** New dialect definitions MUST include sufficient information for proper application. For example, it would need to include the context (which data) over which the filter operates. ***
20:09:56 [asir]
2. Replace with
20:10:13 [dug]
3. and similar for enum
20:10:29 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
20:11:06 [li]
bob: any object to the above proposal to 7235?
20:11:21 [li]
bob: resolved with no objection
20:11:33 [li]
20:12:04 [dug]
Unless otherwise noted, all URIs are absolute URIs and URI comparison MUST be performed according to [RFC 3986] section 6.2.1.
20:12:39 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
20:13:20 [Ram]
20:13:44 [gpilz]
20:13:48 [dug]
20:14:03 [gpilz]
20:14:10 [li]
yves: it's better to stay within uri instead of iri
20:14:30 [li]
object to the proposal?
20:14:31 [Ram]
20:14:38 [Bob]
ack ram
20:14:59 [dug]
20:15:18 [li]
ram: any exception to the general rule?
20:15:28 [dug]
20:15:51 [li]
dug: i couldn't find any...
20:16:10 [Ram]
20:16:13 [li]
7270 resolved as proposed
20:16:29 [li]
20:17:19 [dug]
need format text :-)
20:17:22 [dug]
20:17:26 [li]
7160 accepted
20:17:55 [li]
bob: 7426 accepted as new issue
20:18:16 [Ram]
20:18:19 [li]
bob: ban the use of iri where uri comparison is used
20:18:23 [Bob]
ack ram
20:18:44 [dug]
can we see some text?
20:19:44 [li]
AI for yves to propose text for 7426
20:20:01 [asir]
Action: Yves to propose text for issue 7426
20:20:01 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-97 - Propose text for issue 7426 [on Yves Lafon - due 2009-09-01].
20:20:36 [li]
20:20:55 [asir]
Didn't you resolve it last week?
20:20:59 [dug]
20:21:14 [asir]
doubly resolved!
20:21:41 [Bob]
ack dug
20:22:02 [li]
bob: 7196 resolved
20:22:36 [dug]
20:22:52 [li]
yves: explain the issue
20:22:58 [dug]
20:23:57 [Bob]
ack dug
20:24:12 [li]
dug: why do we need this?
20:25:01 [li]
yves: we need to specify the property of that operation
20:25:20 [li]
dug: do we need to do the same for "getstatus"?
20:25:47 [asir]
20:25:54 [li]
yves: we should spell out for all safe operations
20:26:02 [Bob]
ack asir
20:26:03 [gpilz]
20:26:07 [li]
dug: then we need to apply it to all specs
20:26:58 [li]
asir: why not idempotent?
20:27:13 [asir]
Here is a link to Feb discussion ...
20:27:36 [gpilz]
20:27:44 [Bob]
ack gp
20:27:46 [li]
yves: we could do that if people like it
20:28:09 [li]
gil: this is a constraint on implementations
20:28:43 [li]
..we should do it for other specs as well
20:28:49 [dug]
+1 obviously
20:29:14 [li]
gil: find all safe operations first
20:29:58 [li]
ACTION: yves to include all safe operations in all specs
20:29:58 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-98 - Include all safe operations in all specs [on Yves Lafon - due 2009-09-01].
20:30:15 [gpilz]
20:30:41 [li]
20:30:52 [Zakim]
20:31:21 [li]
gil: explain the new proposal 6401
20:31:58 [dug]
20:32:29 [dug]
20:32:51 [li]
looks ok to me
20:33:45 [dug]
interesting - I'm missing the section header for appendix A when I look at the html version too - but the word doc is ok
20:38:21 [li]
dug: some editorial changes, remove duplicates about mex
20:38:24 [Bob]
Dug presents an amended proposal
20:38:33 [Ram]
I would like to understand this sentence in Dug's revision: "An Event Source there MUST NOT exist more than one EventDescription document."
20:38:55 [Ram]
20:38:58 [dug]
20:39:05 [Bob]
ack ram
20:39:25 [gpilz]
20:39:37 [li]
ram: why that constraint?
20:40:04 [Bob]
ack gp
20:40:19 [li]
dug: it's in the original proposal
20:40:34 [asir]
20:41:36 [li]
gil: more than ED document complicates relations to NW
20:41:52 [Bob]
ack asir
20:42:06 [dug]
20:42:32 [li]
asir: i don't fully understand the requirement
20:42:48 [li] relate ED and NW
20:43:06 [Bob]
ack dug
20:44:26 [asir]
20:44:45 [li]
dug: one ED doc should be returned, more than one adds complexity
20:45:20 [li]
... one ED doc hides complexity
20:45:20 [Bob]
ack asir
20:45:36 [dug]
q+ to ask a clarifying question
20:45:53 [li]
asir: multiple docs is supported by mex in multi sections
20:46:07 [gpilz]
20:46:16 [Bob]
ack dug
20:46:16 [Zakim]
dug, you wanted to ask a clarifying question
20:46:44 [li]
dug: what subscriber do with multii docs?
20:46:58 [li]
20:47:48 [li]
asir: client handles multi-docs according to the standards
20:47:48 [Bob]
ack gp
20:48:41 [li]
gil: we are profiling mex
20:48:59 [Zakim]
20:49:14 [li]
...we make it clear how different parts are related
20:49:15 [asir]
Gil - i was only trying to help you! Nothing more.
20:49:44 [Zakim]
20:49:48 [Zakim]
20:49:51 [Zakim]
20:50:11 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
20:50:27 [dug]
sorry - power went out
20:50:28 [li]
...if two ED docs and two NW docs are returned, then which goes which is not clear
20:51:08 [dug]
20:51:14 [dug]
20:52:16 [asir]
Vow .. are we closing 6401?
20:52:18 [li]
20:52:22 [dug]
never! :-)
20:52:43 [Bob]
ack li
20:53:54 [dug]
I can send in a new rev with the typo that Ram noticed fixed
20:53:54 [Ram]
20:54:02 [dug]
if people want
20:54:20 [Bob]
ack ram
20:54:43 [li]
li: would like to read it
20:55:18 [li]
ram: we would like to postpone it until next week
20:56:09 [Ram]
20:56:26 [li]
bob: review dug's proposal next week as basis of 6401
20:56:59 [DaveS]
20:57:03 [Zakim]
20:57:06 [gpilz]
good job li!
20:57:07 [li]
bob: declare victory for today...
20:57:10 [Zakim]
20:57:11 [Zakim]
20:57:12 [Zakim]
20:57:13 [Zakim]
20:57:15 [Zakim]
20:57:16 [Zakim]
20:57:17 [Zakim]
20:57:19 [Zakim]
20:57:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Yves
20:57:21 [Zakim]
20:57:27 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
20:58:10 [Zakim]
20:58:18 [Zakim]
20:58:48 [Zakim]
21:05:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, gpilz, in WS_WSRA()3:30PM
21:05:02 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
21:05:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were Bob_Freund, +1.919.849.aaaa, +1.207.827.aabb, Sreed, paulN, Doug_Davis, li, Ashok_Malhotra, [Microsoft], Vikas, fmaciel, Yves, Tom_Rutt, gpilz, Mark_Little, JeffM