16:03:03 RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms 16:03:03 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/10/20-soap-jms-irc 16:03:05 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:03:05 Zakim has joined #soap-jms 16:03:07 Zakim, this will be SJMS 16:03:07 ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start 3 minutes ago 16:03:08 Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference 16:03:08 Date: 20 October 2009 16:03:54 eric has joined #soap-jms 16:04:32 zakim, aacc is eric 16:04:32 +eric; got it 16:04:36 Zakim, aaaa is padams 16:04:36 +padams; got it 16:06:25 scribe: alewis 16:06:56 note: quorum not filled. 16:07:05 minutes not approved. 16:07:16 agenda review. 16:07:30 call for comments: none. 16:07:50 eric: issue filed on soap prefix issue in 3.4.5. 16:08:17 resolved: action 115 16:08:29 s/115/116/ 16:09:04 issue 117: changes to spec, action completed by phil. 16:09:14 resolved: issue 117 16:09:23 s/issue/action/ 16:10:59 issue 15 16:11:09 eric: discussion of issue 15? 16:11:18 phil: makes sense to make changes 16:11:36 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Oct/0012.html 16:11:59 eric: discussion of a number of items related to wsdl. 16:12:29 ... item 1: should we reference the uri scheme and set a link the first time, and after that just do bibrefs? 16:13:06 phil: we should have a link the first time, then not? 16:13:17 amy: shouldn't we link first time then bibref? 16:13:35 eric: owl spec links first time, then subsequent uses are undecorated. 16:14:09 phil: what's the difference between the two? 16:14:41 eric: first time is link to bibliography, then undecorated. what we're doing wrong now is direct link, in middle of spec. 16:14:49 phil: should be changed, what's right? 16:15:02 ... first time of mention, what would we see? 16:15:28 amy: first link should be to bibliography; biblio should link to spec. 16:15:38 eric: don't do that now. just appears. 16:16:20 phil: first reference in binding spec to uri spec links to biblio (section 1.1). 16:17:00 ... third point links to uri spec. 16:17:13 eric: no, that points to the rfc for uri. 16:18:06 eric: actually, we're talking about not the link to the soap/jms uri spec, but to the uri spec. 16:18:22 ... we eventually link to the uri rfc, in section 3.4.5. 16:19:35 ... so we need to make a bibref much earlier, and then review the spec to insure that we use the pattern: first mention bibref, later mention undecorated. 16:20:15 phil: was confused, thinking this was jms uri, but this is actually in reference to uri spec. 16:20:38 ... we need the first mention to point to rfc 3987, and later mentions to be unadorned uri text. 16:20:49 (Amy was also confused.) 16:20:51 amy: yes, i was confused as well. 16:21:09 amy: but eric wasn't confused. on the other hand, he wrote the email. 16:21:44 eric: this raises a larger issue: we need to review the spec to insure that all references work this way. 16:22:10 ACTION: review the spec for references, and propose resolution 16:22:10 Sorry, couldn't find user - review 16:22:26 ACTION: eric review the spec for references, and propose resolution 16:22:26 Created ACTION-118 - Review the spec for references, and propose resolution [on Eric Johnson - due 2009-10-27]. 16:23:03 eric: looking at assertions around wsdl, they seem thin. 16:23:25 ... normative statement 3001 doesn't seem to need to be normative, given resolution of issue 15. 16:23:42 ... statement 3002 says: most specific must take precedence. 16:24:07 ... essentially identical to 3001, which says propagates. 16:24:20 ... in any event, there's a lot of overlap, and we need to clarify. 16:24:24 ... raise issue? 16:24:28 phil: yes 16:25:08 eric: allow multiple sibling instances of elements? no prohibition at present. need normative prohibition. 16:25:20 amy: agree 16:25:51 eric: 3003 also appears redundant with 3002. says uri trumps wsdl. 16:26:33 amy: recommend that single issue be raised for overlap of 3001-3002-3003. 16:26:51 eric: 3004 does not contain rfc 2119 keywords. 16:27:00 phil: sentence is incomplete. 16:27:11 eric: non-normative? 16:27:21 phil: oh, just a caption. 16:27:28 eric: weird to have normative caption. 16:28:10 ... says: soap action property is only exception that may appear multiple places. 16:28:38 ... doesn't soap have a means of defining soap action? 16:28:53 ... we need to delegate to soap. 16:29:02 amy: but soap says only valid for http 16:29:12 eric: yes, but we specifically reject that in 3.4.3. 16:29:38 phil: soap action defined in wsdl would be defined in binding. 16:30:20 eric: normative statement (if any) is that this particular property is not allowed to appear in multiple places, which implies that this is a soap-jms property, which is wrong. 16:30:41 ... better to say that things may appear in blah-blah-blah places. 16:31:06 phil: if we get rid of the last property, we don't need a table, because all the properties have the same restrictions. 16:31:28 eric: so we switch the wording, drop the table. eric will open the issue. 16:32:34 eric: wsdl testing, after we make the suggested changes, indicates that it would be straightforward to write test cases that test the precedence rules etc. 16:32:45 ... do we actually have normative statements about wsdl? 16:33:19 phil: in non-wsdl sections, we were specific about consequences of failing assertion 16:33:32 ... in wsdl, not clear that a fault should be raised. 16:33:58 ... seems as though we say: "this is how to do it if you want to; if you don't want to, we don't care." 16:34:24 ... there are no faults to raise, really. 16:34:35 eric: the conformance target is different. 16:34:50 ... in other sections, you raise an error, because it's a protocol error. 16:35:03 ... in this case, we would accept or reject the document. 16:35:15 phil: "reject" mean raise an error? or just ignore? 16:36:01 eric: if generated incorrectly, that's an error, but can't mandate "no bugs". we can only specify that a malformed document must be rejected (or ignored?). 16:36:36 phil: would we require a conforming implementation to raise an error for a misplaced element? or would it just not be looking there? 16:40:07 amy: rants about wsdl, but can't remember and scribe at the same time. 16:40:38 eric: are you saying "it is defined for these locations and is undefined elsewhere?" 16:40:53 amy: yes, approximately. 16:41:19 eric: our normative statements are about precedence. 16:41:29 amy: and about where it has meaning if it appears? 16:41:39 eric: yes, but we don't say you can't put it elsewhere. 16:41:51 amy: yes. 16:42:02 amy: we don't define what it means if it appears elsewhere. 16:42:21 eric: our only concerns are precedence and multiple appearance in single scope. 16:42:27 ... any other ambiguities? 16:42:47 ACTION: eric to try to determine what is normative and how to generate test cases. 16:42:47 Created ACTION-119 - Try to determine what is normative and how to generate test cases. [on Eric Johnson - due 2009-10-27]. 16:43:07 amy: argh. that action should include "for wsdl". 16:43:13 eric: comments on FAQ? 16:43:25 ... on testing? 16:43:41 ... implementation updates? 16:43:53 no comments on the above. 16:43:56 other business? 16:45:08 eric: other obligations raise the need for an interim chair, or otherwise handle his possible absence. 16:47:56 eric: change in dst in the zone where zakim lives; note difference between us and european changes. 16:48:04 -padams 16:48:05 -eric 16:48:07 -alewis 16:48:07 WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended 16:48:08 Attendees were +1.512.286.aaaa, +1.919.663.aabb, +1.650.213.aacc, alewis, eric, padams 16:48:20 padams has left #soap-jms 16:48:35 trackbot, end telcon 16:48:35 Zakim, list attendees 16:48:35 sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is 16:48:36 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:48:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/10/20-soap-jms-minutes.html trackbot 16:48:37 RRSAgent, bye 16:48:37 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/20-soap-jms-actions.rdf : 16:48:37 ACTION: review the spec for references, and propose resolution [1] 16:48:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/20-soap-jms-irc#T16-22-10 16:48:37 ACTION: eric review the spec for references, and propose resolution [2] 16:48:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/20-soap-jms-irc#T16-22-26 16:48:37 ACTION: eric to try to determine what is normative and how to generate test cases. [3] 16:48:37 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/20-soap-jms-irc#T16-42-47