08:02:12 RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra 08:02:12 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/30-ws-ra-irc 08:02:14 RRSAgent, make logs public 08:02:14 Zakim has joined #ws-ra 08:02:16 Zakim, this will be WSRA 08:02:16 ok, trackbot, I see WS_WSRA(F2F)3:30AM already started 08:02:17 Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference 08:02:17 Date: 30 September 2009 08:02:34 chair: Bob Freund 08:03:53 Vikas has joined #ws-ra 08:03:56 + +0196281aaaa 08:05:57 + +39.331.574.aabb 08:06:17 + +1.646.361.aacc 08:07:08 dug has joined #ws-ra 08:10:47 - +39.331.574.aabb 08:11:56 gpilz has joined #ws-ra 08:18:36 Wu has joined #ws-ra 08:32:21 paul has joined #ws-ra 08:32:27 Hi 08:32:29 I'm on 08:32:50 scribe: Paul Fremantle 08:32:59 scribenick: paul 08:33:42 chair: Bob Freund 08:33:53 + +39.331.574.aadd 08:34:00 PM scribe duty reserved for Jeff MM 08:34:13 I'm on too 08:35:53 bob: takes attendance 08:36:10 is there an agenda? I did not get it thorugh email 08:36:21 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Sep/0096.html 08:36:25 thanks dug 08:43:02 Ram has joined #ws-ra 08:43:22 Sreed has joined #ws-ra 08:44:29 bob: All issues are fair game for discussion. The agenda is my attempt to group them. 08:45:01 ram: can we group the policy issues 08:45:44 bob: agenda is acceptable 08:46:06 bob: any objections? none - minutes are approved. 08:46:21 (I get a lot of noise, might loose something in the conversation) 08:46:46 jeff: Martin is going to be added as a member 08:47:27 bob: logistics 08:48:35 Katy: Paul is offering a tour of the Bell Tower in Winchester Cathedral. Don't be late. 6.55pm. The big entrance. 08:49:05 Katy: Meal booked at the Old Vine around 8ish 08:51:05 Bob: next item - November F2F. Please register. 08:51:31 Bob: will we need a January F2F. 08:51:49 Dave: January is close and we are far enough from finishing. 08:54:35 bob: 2 people think Colombo is a good place 08:54:43 bob: 7 people for the Bay area 08:55:49 bob: 4 for Japan 08:59:58 Bob: proposed dates Tues 26th-Thurs 28th Jan 2010 09:00:12 -??P0 09:00:24 Bob: tentatively hosted by Fujitsu in Sunnyvale/Santa Clara 09:02:08 Bob: sent drafts to potential reviewers 09:02:36 Bob: cancel next Tuesday's telecon. No objections. Tues 6th October cancelled 09:02:42 TOPIC: action item review 09:02:57 jeffm has joined #ws-ra 09:03:21 + +1.914.066.aaee 09:03:35 trackbot-ng, comment action-100 in process 09:03:35 ACTION-100 Automate cross-links among WS-RA specs notes added 09:03:56 close action-102 09:03:56 ACTION-102 Create new proposal for 7553 closed 09:04:03 close action-103 09:04:03 ACTION-103 Create proposal for 7554 that considers 7553 closed 09:04:50 trackbot-ng, comment action-104 still working 09:04:50 ACTION-104 Produce proposal for 7589 notes added 09:05:13 trackbot-ng, comment action-88 Dug still in discussions with Ram 09:05:13 ACTION-88 Come back witth a new proposal for 6724 before next meeting. notes added 09:05:49 trackbot-ng, comment action-85 Waiting until policy is done 09:05:49 ACTION-85 7068 addressed by F2F notes added 09:06:17 trackbot-ng, comment action-36 Deferring. Needs to be done before CR 09:06:17 ACTION-36 Write a draft proposal for management of migration notes. notes added 09:06:43 TOPIC: New issues 09:06:56 Issue-7716 Clairfy Enumerate operation http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7716 09:06:58 -Vedamuthu (has proposal) 09:08:02 ASIR: explains the issue (reads from description) 09:08:39 bob: no objection to opening issue. Issue is opened. Note there exists a proposal 09:09:13 bob: Clarification seems straightforward 09:09:27 Dug: why wasn't it like this to start with. 09:09:36 Asir: Oversight (Oops) 09:10:20 Bob: any objection to accepting this proposal as the resolution 09:10:31 Bob: No objections. Resolved and accepted 09:10:50 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7728 09:11:14 RESOLUTION: Issue-7716 as noted in bugzilla 09:11:58 No objection to opening 7728 09:12:04 issue is open 09:12:13 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7731 09:12:38 bob: no objection to opening 7731 09:13:00 TOPIC: Issues with proposals 09:13:04 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7088 09:13:25 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wsfrag.html 09:14:25 bob: accept this specification as the resolution of the 7088. 09:14:32 bob: issues can still be opened 09:14:36 q+ 09:14:39 Sreed has joined #ws-ra 09:15:02 bob: remove section 'Open Questions and Actions' and then raise these as new issues against this spec 09:15:10 bob: any objection to doing these both? 09:15:51 asir: why bold? 09:16:10 bob: seems strange to bold stuff, when this is a new spec 09:17:32 bob: proposal to move forward. 09:17:53 bob: no objection 09:18:54 RESOLUTION: issue-7088. Add new spec without section D. Raise all section D items as new issues against the spec. 09:19:23 Dug: yes we can update the WSDL and XSD for WS-Fragment in the next couple of days 09:19:57 ack dug 09:20:18 ACTION: Dug to Update WSDL and XSD for WS-Fragment due 2nd October 2009 09:20:18 Created ACTION-107 - Update WSDL and XSD for WS-Fragment due 2nd October 2009 [on Doug Davis - due 2009-10-07]. 09:21:00 bob: Aim for FPWD of WS-Fragment by end of week 09:21:28 bob: assumption is that with WS-Fragment RT will go away. Any objection to ceasing work on RT 09:21:32 bob: none 09:21:55 RESOLUTION: close RT and remove issues (mothball spec) 09:22:10 MChapman has joined #ws-ra 09:22:30 bob: ask permission of the group for Bob to work with Yves to identify the right approach for mothballing RT 09:22:47 Dave: See if they have a proper way of doing this 09:22:52 MartinC has joined #ws-ra 09:23:12 bob: Is there permission to do this? Yes. 09:23:32 TOPIC: Issues relating to RT 09:23:48 MChapman has left #ws-ra 09:23:52 -Issue-6422 RT - Introduces An Ad Hoc Boxcarring Mechanism http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6422 09:23:53 -Bullen 09:23:55 -Issue-6549 RT - Create focused on resource fragments http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6549 09:23:56 -Bullen 09:23:58 -Issue-6550 RT - Support for XSLT and XQuery in PUT http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6550 09:23:59 -Bullen (Action-11) 09:24:01 -Issue-6552 RT - Lifecycle metadata for Create http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6552 09:24:02 -Bullen 09:24:04 -Issue-6576 RT - No Fault Defined for Mismatch between 09:24:05 ResourceTransfer header and message body http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6576 09:24:07 -Bullen 09:24:08 -Issue-6578 RT - SideEffects applies to other faults http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6578 09:24:10 -Bullen 09:24:11 -Issue-6579 RT - Bad fragment values with Create http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6579 09:24:13 -Bullen 09:24:14 -Issue-6603 RT - Inconsistencies in CreateResponse message http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6603 09:24:16 -Bullen 09:24:17 -Issue-6634 RT - Document algorithm for modify http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6634 09:24:19 -Bullen 09:24:21 -Issue-6636 RT - Add example of resource after the create http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6636 09:24:23 -Bullen 09:24:25 -Issue-6691 WS-T/RT - Reconcile faults http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6691 09:24:27 -Warr (Action-51) 09:24:36 Wu: should open any against Fragment spec. 09:25:00 Bob: proposal to close with no action all the above listed issues against RT 09:25:15 Asir: believes these issues will not re-open against Frag 09:25:16 +Yves 09:25:33 Bob: any objection to close these 10 issues? 09:25:49 Asir: Issue-6691? 09:26:04 Katy: Will look at these and raise issue if needed 09:26:11 Bob: Any objection to closing? 09:26:57 RESOLUTION: All 10 issues are closed. 09:27:15 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6407 09:27:34 Bob: re-target 6407 to Frag 09:27:40 Are there 11 issues in the pack that was resolved? 09:27:54 RESOLUTION: retarget 6407 to Frag 09:27:58 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6403 09:28:00 TOPIC: Issue-6403 09:28:10 ram - I didn't count.... I thought Dug did 09:28:47 I counted just now, it is 11. 09:28:50 Thanks. 09:28:55 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Sep/att-0090/6403-proposal.doc 09:29:15 s/All 10 issues/All 11 issues 09:29:19 s/All 10 issues/All 11 issues/ 09:30:30 katy: nested enumerate is no longer required. Simplified proposal. 09:31:04 asir has joined #ws-ra 09:31:45 asir2 has joined #ws-ra 09:32:56 + +0196270aaff 09:33:29 - +39.331.574.aadd 09:33:41 Dave: proposal is to remove last sentence on the first para. The sentence doesn't help, just confuses. 09:33:58 text dave wants to remove: The wsenp:Enumeration policy assertion specifies a concrete behaviour whereas the wsdl:portType or wsdl20:interface is an abstract construct. 09:34:28 PaulN has joined #ws-ra 09:34:51 bob: no objection to remove: "The wsenp:Enumeration policy assertion specifies a concrete behaviour whereas the wsdl:portType or wsdl20:interface is an abstract construct." 09:35:07 09:35:07 ? 09:35:07 09:35:41 Bob: no objection to remove ' ' 09:35:49 Dug: doing real-time edits. 09:36:02 Dave: do we need to edit the first part of the para? 09:36:05 Dug: nope 09:37:49 Asir: need to remove 'with nested policy assertions' as well 09:38:09 dug: Also further cascaded edits 09:38:28 Asir: need a schema 09:39:23 Martin: general question. When you get to the schemas do they need to list valid values? e.g. FilterDialect. 09:40:06 Dug: in other specs (e.g. eventing). Schema does specify default value. 09:40:43 Asir: references between specs? 09:41:08 s/between specs/within the spec/ 09:42:42 Vikas has joined #ws-ra 09:43:04 Asir: resolution to 7716 obviates need for nested policy assertions 09:43:32 bob: first editorial note can be removed 09:44:14 bob: second editorial note? 09:44:32 Asir: suggestion - leave this note until we have resolved other related issues 09:44:40 Dug: uncomfortable leaving the notes 09:44:50 Asir: common approach in W3C 09:44:55 ednotes can stay until REC 09:45:00 Dug: prefer an issue. 09:45:02 and even in some RECs you can find ednotes 09:46:12 gpilz: Filter dialect is a parameter not a nested policy assertion. If I'm a consumer only supporting one dialect. I'd like to use a policy assertion matching algorithm. As a parameter, I need to understand the details. 09:46:50 Katy: If you put as a nested assertion. It would need an attribute. 09:47:15 gpilz: What about using a policy assertion in the namespace of the filter dialect. No attributes 09:47:30 katy: problem: Couldn't establish list of filter dialects 09:47:48 dug: every solution has a problem. Stealing someone elses namespace 09:48:10 gpilz: don't have to use xpath's namespace. We can create our own namespaces for dialects. 09:48:21 dug: that is true. 09:48:46 dug: requires that anyone defining that ns doesn't use the name filter dialect 09:49:42 gpilz: would like to see nested policy assertions for Filter Dialects. 09:49:46 q+ 09:50:14 gpilz: sees this as policy matching 09:51:04 Q+ 09:51:27 gpilz: don't have to write code. Just construct the policy and match 09:51:50 dave: clarifies Gil's discussion 09:52:27 ack asir 09:53:03 Asir: if you want to do policy matching. Nested policy assertion with a qname that matches the dialect. 09:53:28 GPilz: the qname MUST be 09:54:08 GPilz: re-iterates that we shouldn't be using XPath's namespace. 09:54:29 Asir: come up with our own qname 09:54:43 q+ 09:55:13 gpilz: Need to define a new filter dialect, then you either need to create a URI or a QName 09:56:05 gpilz: if you create a new dialect, here is a template assertion 09:58:04 dug: answer why it needs to be a template. imagine a generic pub/sub client. Need to drop down potential dialects. Look for assertions with the tag "FilterDialect", then populate list with URIs 09:58:52 - +1.914.066.aaee 09:59:20 09:59:32 asir: proposes a joint solution 10:00:06 dug: do I still need to know urn:foo 10:01:00 katy: Paul Nolan had a suggestion to combine these message assertions 10:01:35 ack wu 10:01:42 i would like an opp to respond to Katy 10:02:31 +??P0 10:02:33 gpilz: I want to use policy matching to solve this problem 10:02:54 q+ 10:03:04 gpilz: If I don't dictate the template. Now I need to know the qname and the assertion 10:03:30 gpilz: If you give a template, then its simpler/more straightforward. 10:05:01 asir: respond to Katy. In the urn:foo example. In that case its just additional information. The real semantics is in urn:foo. Always pick up the addition semantics. 10:05:07 Sreed has joined #ws-ra 10:05:13 ack paul 10:06:21 -??P0 10:06:28 is gil's 10:07:34 ack dug 10:07:37 paul: prefers the status quo, then asirs 10:08:12 dug: can we mandate that you must provide that attribute. 10:08:28 gpilz: we must 10:08:38 bob: short break 10:09:02 - +1.646.361.aacc 10:10:15 +??P0 10:18:57 bob: bad joke. not worth repeating :p 10:19:19 Bob: do we leave this in? 10:19:29 Dave: prefer to raise this note as an issue 10:20:25 ACTION: Asir to raise second and third editorial note as new issue and they will be deleted. 10:20:25 Created ACTION-108 - Raise second and third editorial note as new issue and they will be deleted. [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2009-10-07]. 10:20:52 gpilz: happy to accept this and raise a new issue 10:21:17 bob: accepting this proposal will not stop Gil raising issues 10:21:29 ACTION: gpilz to raise issue about support for "generic enumeration clients" 10:21:29 Created ACTION-109 - Raise issue about support for "generic enumeration clients" [on Gilbert Pilz - due 2009-10-07]. 10:21:37 dug: produces newly updated proposal out of hat 10:21:59 word doc: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=747 10:23:34 Dug: produces edits 10:26:11 q+ 10:26:23 RESOLUTION: accept Dug's edited proposal: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=749 10:26:59 ack dug 10:27:33 dug: is the group ok with the editors applying this accepted policy doc as a template for the other policy docs 10:27:57 RESOLUTION: yes the editors can go ahead with using this doc as a template for other specs 10:28:10 Bob: take a look at Eventing Policy specs 10:28:39 TOPIC: Issue 6402 10:28:53 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Sep/0116.html 10:29:44 katy: introduces proposal 10:31:25 + +39.331.574.aagg 10:31:40 Wu: proposes change to default ns shortname 10:32:13 katy: there are mistakes in this. FormatName should be URI not duration 10:32:44 katy: also - s/nested assertions/parameters/ 10:33:10 Asir: drop line saying "If DateTime..... MUST include this assertion" 10:33:25 Dug: should we drop editorial note and raise issue? 10:33:51 Bob: editorial note is already covered by Asirs new issue 10:34:14 Asir: same issues apply to the SubsMgr policy too 10:34:22 Dug produces attachment 10:35:35 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=750 10:37:15 - +39.331.574.aagg 10:38:42 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=751 10:39:18 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=752 10:42:02 wu: needs more time to review 10:42:19 katy: could we accept now and then raise issues 10:42:28 bob: wants to timebox to a day 10:42:54 bob: revisit tomorrow. 10:43:43 martin: in the format name, it doesn't offer the potential values. 10:44:57 dug: the PT0S is a special value, hence in the policy. There is an issue to discuss this in the spec too 10:45:12 Wu: similar discussion around delivery push 10:45:21 Bob: should we do push first? 10:45:54 martin: more concerned about overall consistency between policy and protocol 10:46:11 bob: revisit tomorrow 10:46:54 TOPIC: Transfer Policy 7731 10:47:01 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7731 10:48:55 dug: explains proposal 10:49:34 katy: the ? should be a * 10:50:55 group: edits document 10:55:02 link to proposal: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=753 10:55:28 q+ 11:02:16 ok 11:02:21 ack paul 11:05:23 -Yves 11:07:19 ACTION: paul to raise new issue - how does a resource factory say 'i will always create resources with a consistent policy and what is that policy' 11:07:19 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - paul 11:07:19 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. pnolan, pfremant2) 11:07:35 ACTION: pfremant2 to raise new issue - how does a resource factory say 'i will always create resources with a consistent policy and what is that policy' 11:07:35 Created ACTION-110 - Raise new issue - how does a resource factory say 'i will always create resources with a consistent policy and what is that policy' [on Paul Fremantle - due 2009-10-07]. 11:07:50 latest: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=754&action=edit 11:07:51 oops 11:07:56 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=754 11:12:08 group: edits document 11:14:29 bob: break for lunch, resolve this issue after lunch 11:15:26 bob: 1:15pm 11:17:41 -??P0 11:41:33 Proposed new text: When present, this parameter indicates that attempts to change the representation that are read-only will generate a wst:PutDenied fault. If this parameter is not present, attempts to modify read-only portions of the resource representation will be ignored. 11:42:00 Bob has joined #ws-ra 11:42:01 one more try: When present, this parameter indicates that attempts to change portions of the representation that are read-only will generate a wst:PutDenied fault. If this parameter is not present, attempts to modify read-only portions of the resource representation will be ignored. 11:55:09 DaveS has joined #ws-ra 11:55:16 Hi 11:55:22 Hi back 12:00:44 - +0196281aaaa 12:04:10 + +0196281aahh 12:04:43 Hello 12:04:59 Ehlo 12:06:49 Ashok has joined #ws-ra 12:07:49 Hello Ashok! 12:08:01 Good afternoon! 12:08:13 MartinC has joined #ws-ra 12:10:53 just for wu: When present, this parameter indicates that attempts to change portions of the representation that are read-only will generate a wst:PutDenied fault. If this parameter is not present, attempts to modify read-only portions of the resource representation will be ignored. 12:11:09 gpilz has joined #ws-ra 12:11:12 +Yves 12:12:11 with an edit from Wu: When present, this parameter indicates that attempts to change portions of the representation that are read-only will generate a wst:PutDenied fault. If this parameter is not present, attempts to modify read-only portions of the resource representation will be ignored without any fault being generated. 12:13:08 scribe: Martin Chapman 12:13:10 latest: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=755 12:13:21 acribenick: MartinC 12:13:45 scribenick: MartinC 12:13:47 Topic: continuing 7731 12:15:27 +Ashok_Malhotra 12:17:31 final: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=756&action=edit 12:17:36 oops http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=756 12:17:56 A few editorial changes in attchment 756 12:18:47 Asir: what is the relation between this and 6721 12:19:04 Katy: will make a proposal for 6721 12:19:08 + +91.40.66.29.aaii 12:19:36 s/attch/attach/ 12:20:40 Asir: thinks 6721 is possibly a close no action 12:21:17 Bob: consider 6721 separately as a different issue 12:22:07 No objection to resolving 7731 with comment #5 (www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=756) 12:22:22 mex latest: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=757 12:22:58 Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6406 12:24:17 looking at the attachment http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=757 12:24:59 Wu: should we remove the note 12:25:20 Dug: it is there as a reminder 12:26:14 doc: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=758 12:28:11 No objection to resolving 6406 with comment #2: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=758 12:29:07 Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6407 12:29:52 Topic: New issue http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7728 12:30:07 Ashok introduces his issue 12:30:34 q+ 12:31:09 q+ 12:32:18 Ashok: point 1 is what needs to be addressed, propbably 2. has been covered 12:32:33 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6463 12:32:36 Katy: is this related to 6463 12:32:56 Ashok: maybe, didn't look at it. 12:33:07 Asir: dupl? 12:33:39 Ashok: need to look at whether 6463 deals with point 1 12:34:07 Mark as dependant on 6463, and will discuss in that order 12:37:50 Topic: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6721 12:38:21 Q+ 12:39:37 Katy: goes over the issue 12:39:56 Paul: why are operations implicit? 12:40:58 Ashok has joined #ws-ra 12:41:12 ack katy 12:41:13 Katy: this is policy applied to mex 12:41:50 q+ 12:42:13 Dug: we agreed that the operation are implicit incl on transfer so might have to re-open ssue 6694 12:43:21 Katy: designed not to be complicated if you didn't want to use it, hence the use of policy attachemnets 12:43:30 s/nets/ents/ 12:43:48 from transfer: An endpoint MAY indicate that it supports WS-Transfer, or its features, by including the WS-Transfer Policy assertion(s) within its WSDL. By doing so the endpoint is indicating that the corresponding WS-Transfer operations are supported by that endpoint even though they do not explicitly appear in its WSDL. 12:44:43 Paul: is there a way we can point to the wsdl operation? 12:44:57 Like an implicit import 12:45:25 Katy: policy attachment is a way to do exactly this 12:46:00 - +91.40.66.29.aaii 12:46:20 + +39.331.574.aajj 12:46:28 ...provides more flexibility this way 12:46:43 ack asir 12:46:50 ack paul 12:46:52 ...especially if different policies in different directions 12:47:36 Asir: What is the PolicyAttachement? An assertion? 12:48:04 ... 12:48:20 ....how does this fit in the policy model if its a parameter 12:48:45 ...what is the subject of the uri 12:49:23 Katy: what we define the uri to mean, in this case a uri expression of a subject 12:50:28 ....applies to the implicit operation/message 12:51:09 Asir: so there are a range of subjects (input/output/faults) 12:52:20 need a predefined way to identify the subjects 12:53:51 - +39.331.574.aajj 12:53:52 Paul: want to attach a policy to the imported policy 12:54:03 s/policy/wsdl 12:54:43 Gil: should we take it outside Enumeration? 12:54:54 Katy: its related to a specific endpoint 12:55:43 Paul:two sub issues: where does the policy live? and is there a standard way to refer to the subjects? 12:56:59 q+ 12:57:15 Katy: we need this for the getmetadata 12:57:43 Paul: seems complicated since we have hidden the operations 12:59:19

li has joined #ws-ra 12:59:59 q? 13:00:00

q+ 14:29:06 Bob: Minimum goal is two impls from two diff companies 14:29:23

q? 14:36:11 Jeff: transitive is ok, but may miss some combinations 14:36:30

may i speak from the queue? 14:44:55 Li: compliance is defined in each spec and should be obvious from the section 14:45:00

cross-talking heard 15:19:17

ws-ra and another group 15:29:46 Gil: goes over the issues wrt expiration 15:30:54

q+ 15:52:01 q+ 15:52:05

no voice 16:02:09

complete silence on phone 16:02:35 looks like we are done :-) 16:02:54

classic forrest gump moment 16:05:11 Li, we are trying to give you an AI 16:05:18