IRC log of soap-jms on 2009-10-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

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