Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference -- 01 Dec 2009

<trackbot> Date: 01 December 2009

<Bob> scribenick: asoldano

Agenda agreed

minutes of 17th Nov approved

notes for f2f meeting location to be sent to participants

<dug> Gil tries to make us jealous :-)

<scribe> new snapshots to be reviewed, next meeting we'll check where we are with them

<dug> lol

Bob: are there any specific new issues requiring more info
... before accepting them all ?

<dug> can take those issue/questions to the mailing list

asir: aren't we chaingin the way to proceed here?

asir requiring more info on 8167 8284

<asir> who is speaking?

<dug> and he's a bit sick

<gpilz> getting up at 4:00 am for conference calls and flying around on freezing cold airplanes - wonder why I'm sick?

8284 is understandable and is accepted

8167 requires checking past minutes

all the new issues except 8167 are accepted

Issue 8031

8031 is related to 7986

Issue 6463

<Katy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Nov/0047.html

Bob: are you ok with the direction in Katy's email?

<Katy> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wsmex.html#Bootstrapping-Metadata-Retrieval

Asir: proposing some followup..

<Ram2> \nickname Ram

<scribe> ACTION: Katy to produce detail example for 6463 before next call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/01-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-124 - Produce detail example for 6463 before next call [on Katy Warr - due 2009-12-08].

7728

7728 discussion postponed

7911

<dug> Latest proposal: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7911#c8

Yves ok with the latest proposal

<Ram> Ram's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Nov/0077.html

<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Nov/0078.html

Dug's proposal 8 is intended to address all operations

<Yves> I would note that comment #8 is no longer about dispatching

<asir> Hard to understand the value offered by these words

<DaveS> +1 to Dug's statement that the first sentence is simply setting the context.

<gpilz> The specification should be based on W3C Recommendations (SOAP Version 1.2, WS-Addressing 1.0, WSDL2.0, WS-Policy 1.5) and *aligned with ISO 29361:2008 (WS-I BP 1.1)*.

<asir> BP 1.1 is unaware of WS-Addressing

<dug> thank you Dave - its just setting the context - nicely put

<dug> However, the Working Group should also consider conformance to the forthcoming profiles WS-I is finalizing assuming they achieve WS-I "Final Material" status before the Working Group completes its deliverables.

<dug> This is part of BP 1.2/2.0

<Ram> Proposal:

;)

<ram2> Proposal:

<ram2> An implementation can examine [Action] property, the QName of the [Body] child, or a combination of both.

<asir> An implementation can examine [Action] property, the QName of the [Body] child, or a combination of both. An implementation that

<asir> examines just one of those values, but at multiple points during the entire processing of the message, are advised to ensure that the values that are used each time are consistent.

<dug> When determining the operation associated with a particular message, an implementation can examine the [Action] property, the QName of the [Body] child or a combination of both. An implementation...

<dug> yves?

<Yves> sounds ok

<dug> I didn't mention dispatching

<Yves> dispatching was in earlier text but not in text #8

<asir> yeah but the words are effectively about dispatching

<dug> I don't see the word dispatching

<Yves> text #8 is aobut action signature, so figuring out the action, no dispatching involved

<dug> When determining the operation associated with a particular message, an implementation can examine the [Action] property, the QName of the [Body] child or a combination of both.

<dug> it doesn't say why you're trying to figure out what the op is.

<gpilz> When determining the operation associated with a particular message, an implementation can examine the [Action] property, the QName of the [Body] child or a combination of both. An implementation that examines just one of those values, but at multiple points during the entire processing of the message, are advised to ensure that the values that are used each time are consistent.

<Yves> [repeating for the record: looks good to me]

RESOLUTION: 7911 closed with no action

8201

<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Nov/0079.html

Dug: the specs need clarification
... so close with no action is not that a good solution

<ram2> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Nov/0073.html

<DaveS> +1 to msg 79

<dug> s/compliant implementation/compliant event source/ ....

<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Nov/0079.html + change 'compliant implementation' to "compliant event source...."

<asir> That is the pattern

<asir> The editorial team needs to transcribe the table into sentences

RESOLUTION: 8201 solved with the text in message 79 + editorial issues above

82911

<dug> its just the last line that's changed - I think

<asir> good one

RESOLUTION: 892 solved as proposed

<dug> I like diffs :-)

8203

RESOLUTION: 8203 solved as proposed

8300

more time required

that's all for today

- DRAFT -

Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference

01 Dec 2009

Attendees

Contents