IRC log of ws-ra on 2009-12-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:29:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
20:29:09 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/12/15-ws-ra-irc
20:29:10 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
20:29:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
20:29:12 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
20:29:12 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM already started
20:29:13 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
20:29:13 [trackbot]
Date: 15 December 2009
20:29:25 [Zakim]
+??P6
20:29:30 [Sreed]
Sreed has joined #ws-ra
20:29:41 [Bob]
chair: Bob Freund
20:30:03 [Zakim]
+ +984999aacc
20:30:06 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
20:30:26 [Zakim]
- +039331574aabb
20:30:31 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
20:30:36 [Zakim]
+ +3531498aadd
20:30:44 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.970.aaee
20:30:50 [Zakim]
+ +039331574aaff
20:30:59 [fmaciel]
fmaciel has joined #ws-ra
20:31:01 [asoldano]
Zakim, aaff is asoldano
20:31:01 [Zakim]
+asoldano; got it
20:31:07 [MartinC]
3531498 is me
20:31:58 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
20:32:35 [Zakim]
+Tom_Rutt
20:33:31 [Zakim]
+Ashok_Malhotra
20:33:39 [Zakim]
+ +0207202aagg
20:33:57 [Zakim]
+Yves
20:34:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.642.aahh
20:34:52 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
20:34:55 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
20:35:21 [Katy]
Katy has joined #ws-ra
20:35:35 [Bob]
agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Dec/0060.html
20:35:40 [dug]
q+
20:36:03 [trutt]
trutt has joined #ws-ra
20:37:09 [Bob]
scribenick: Katy
20:37:36 [dug]
q+
20:38:12 [dug]
q-
20:38:26 [Katy]
TOPIC: Appoval of agenda
20:38:42 [Katy]
dug: Pls can we talk anbout 8201 if pos
20:38:59 [Katy]
Chair: Agenda agreed
20:39:11 [Katy]
TOPIC: Approval of minutes 8th Dec
20:39:21 [Katy]
No objects, minutes approved
20:39:41 [Katy]
TOPIC: Publication of 17/11 snapshots
20:40:20 [Katy]
RESOLUTION: Approve publication of 17 Nov snapshots as heartbeat
20:40:35 [Bob]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/tracker/actions/open
20:41:30 [Katy]
TOPIC: Discuss action items
20:43:09 [Katy]
Bob: No meetings after this one until Jan 5th
20:43:15 [dug]
I don't recall Gil getting Bob's permission to go to Australia
20:43:25 [dug]
clearly, he was out of order
20:47:49 [Katy]
Bob: Presume 8176 will stay until next meeting.
20:48:23 [Katy]
Gil: 8284 Text in WSDL 1.1 not consistent with schema.
20:48:39 [Katy]
Bob: One of problems was BP restricted to HTTP and SOAP 1.1
20:49:20 [asir]
q+
20:49:32 [Katy]
Gil: Need carefully crafted text.
20:49:35 [dug]
Topic: 8284
20:49:42 [Bob]
ack asir
20:50:03 [Katy]
Asir: we have a bunch of ws-ra spec wsdls already and we can already build BP compliant.
20:50:33 [Katy]
Gil: We are talking about references to WSDL 1.1 in our specs when WSDL 1.1 is broken
20:50:44 [trutt]
q+
20:50:53 [Katy]
Asir: but why does this matter as our WSDLs are ok
20:51:08 [asir]
... also our operation descriptions are okay
20:51:19 [Bob]
ack tru
20:51:37 [gpilz]
here's what I'm talking about: 4.7.12 Describing headerfault Elements There is inconsistency between WSDL specification text and the WSDL schema regarding soapbind:headerfaults. R2719 A wsdl:binding in a DESCRIPTION MAY contain no soapbind:headerfault elements if there are no known header faults. The WSDL 1.1 schema makes the specification of soapbind:headerfault element mandatory on wsdl:input and wsdl:output
20:52:30 [Katy]
Asir: Our WSDLs are BP compliant so why does it matter
20:53:09 [Katy]
Gil: We should reference a version of WSDL 1.1 that is BP compliant - where the inconsistencies have been addressed
20:53:19 [dug]
q+
20:53:27 [asir]
WS-RA specs don't define any headers
20:54:21 [dug]
q-
20:55:34 [dug]
so a BP compliant WSDL isn't WSDL 1.1 compliant?
20:56:20 [asir]
q+
20:56:37 [Katy]
Bob: How about we keep the normative ref to WSDL (same as BP) but mention that we would expect implementations to be conformant to the requirements of BP?
20:56:54 [Katy]
Asir: but wouldn't we need to list the requirements
20:57:06 [Katy]
Bob: It would be up to the implementer to choose
20:57:17 [Katy]
... depending on what they were doing
20:57:27 [Katy]
Asir: We would like to consider this
20:57:58 [Katy]
ACTION: Gil to produce some specifics for 8284 that reflect the relevant aspects for ws-ra
20:57:58 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Gil
21:00:45 [Bob]
ACTION: Gilbert to produce some specifics for 8284 that reflect the relevant aspects for ws-ra
21:01:05 [asir]
q+
21:01:06 [Katy]
TOPIC: Issue 6463
21:01:15 [Katy]
Katy: Described 2nd proposal
21:01:49 [dug]
q+
21:01:53 [Katy]
Asir: We like the proposal but have some further changes marked up
21:02:04 [trackbot]
Could not create new action (failed to parse response from server) - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened.
21:02:04 [trackbot]
Could not create new action (unparseable data in server response: local variable 'd' referenced before assignment) - please contact sysreq with the details of what happened.
21:02:04 [Katy]
... we can walk through now
21:02:25 [dug]
I'd like more time to review Asir's proposed edits
21:02:37 [Bob]
ack asir
21:02:40 [dug]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Dec/0067.html
21:02:47 [li]
anybody having problem with http://lists.w3.org?
21:03:00 [dug]
yes I'm having 'issues' too
21:03:03 [Yves]
no problems should be with www.w3.org currently
21:03:40 [Katy]
Asir: Would like to call out assumption for 8.1
21:03:41 [dug]
email site is ok- main w3 site is slow/down
21:03:45 [Katy]
q+
21:04:13 [dug]
e.g. bugzilla is down for me
21:04:35 [Katy]
... and describe other details of the markup
21:06:13 [Bob]
ack dug
21:06:36 [Ashok]
q+
21:06:44 [Bob]
ack katy
21:07:57 [Katy]
Dug: Please could we have a marked up copy
21:08:34 [Katy]
Ashok: I made some comments on the syntax - in particular the layers of wrapping needed in the Metadata
21:08:46 [Katy]
... could be a new issue
21:09:18 [Katy]
... but this is related to how the policy is attached to the endpoint so I am wondering what to do with these concerns
21:09:57 [asir]
q+
21:10:15 [Bob]
ack ashok
21:10:19 [Katy]
... Issues are: 1) schema url is duplicated
21:10:33 [Katy]
... 2) We have 3 layers of wrapping
21:10:46 [Katy]
q+
21:11:42 [Bob]
ack asir
21:11:44 [Katy]
(08) Identifier='http://www.w3.org/2009/09/ws-mex'>
21:11:45 [Katy]
(09) <wsdl:definitions name='StockQuoteMetadataExchangeMetadata'
21:11:45 [Katy]
(10) targetNamespace='http://www.w3.org/2009/09/ws-mex'
21:11:45 [Katy]
(11) xmlns:wsdl='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/'
21:12:23 [Katy]
Asir: The above is just that the identifier is a hint for what is in the WSDL - the identifier is optional
21:12:42 [Katy]
... so is not required
21:12:59 [Katy]
(04) <wsa:Metadata>
21:12:59 [Katy]
(05) <mex:Metadata xmlns:mex='http://www.w3.org/2009/09/ws-mex'>
21:12:59 [Katy]
(06) <mex:MetadataSection
21:13:26 [Katy]
Ashok: Why not take out mex:Metadata?
21:13:58 [Katy]
Asir: Because the mex:metadata may be embeded in transfer response, epr or mex
21:14:31 [dug]
q+
21:14:43 [Katy]
... transfer requires one wrapper which is first wrapper in resource representation
21:15:03 [Katy]
... the consistent wrapper is useful for consistency
21:16:02 [Bob]
ack katy
21:16:12 [Bob]
ack dug
21:16:36 [asir]
q+
21:17:05 [Katy]
Dug: The mex arwpper in transfer is only useful in transfer when all metadata is wrapped in one blob
21:17:33 [Bob]
ack asir
21:17:38 [Katy]
... if you are moving mex metadata documents it provide consistency
21:17:58 [dug]
q+
21:18:22 [Bob]
ack dug
21:18:33 [Katy]
... but other metadata - wsdl, schema - does not have wrapper so ws-t, http do not get consistency through mex metadata
21:18:40 [asir]
q+
21:19:17 [Bob]
ack asir
21:19:17 [Katy]
dug: I think common usecase would be 'give me your wsdl' where the mex:metadata is not require
21:19:25 [Katy]
Ashok: Agree
21:20:19 [dug]
q+
21:23:42 [Bob]
ack dug
21:25:18 [asir]
q+
21:25:53 [Katy]
Ashok: We have not reached agreement on the points that I raised
21:26:14 [asir]
q+
21:26:18 [Katy]
... Issue is: The syntax of attaching mex matadata should be simplified
21:26:35 [Katy]
Bob: Would anyone object to opening an issue?
21:26:39 [Bob]
ack asir
21:26:53 [Katy]
q+
21:27:11 [Bob]
ack katy
21:27:59 [dug]
q+
21:28:07 [Bob]
ack dug
21:28:36 [asir]
q+
21:28:38 [Katy]
Katy: I would like to discuss Ashok's issue now so that we can get it in the open
21:28:56 [Bob]
ack asir
21:29:01 [Katy]
Bob: As this is a substantive issue, my recommendation would be to open it now
21:29:03 [dug]
q+
21:29:38 [Yves]
if it's just syntax, that's not a major change
21:29:57 [Katy]
Asir: This is not a huge issue - no new feature
21:30:01 [gpilz]
q+
21:30:05 [dug]
its a bit more than syntax
21:30:21 [Bob]
ack dug
21:30:52 [Zakim]
- +984999aacc
21:31:11 [asir]
Q+
21:31:53 [dug]
he really wants to be on the queue :-)
21:31:59 [Bob]
ack gp
21:32:09 [Katy]
dug: The usecase is when the metadata is something as simple as wsdl - it is not clear whether this is just a wsld document directly under wsa:metadata or whether it is wrapped in a mex:metadata wrapper. That needs to be cleared up.
21:32:27 [Zakim]
+ +984999aaii
21:32:48 [Katy]
Gil: I don't think it's advisable to leave this until last call. We should focus on it now
21:32:51 [Bob]
ack asir
21:34:10 [Katy]
Asir: Embedding WSDL directly into ws-addressing metadata - was taken out as there was no implementation experience
21:34:20 [Katy]
Ashok: Not relevant here
21:34:24 [Katy]
q+
21:35:51 [Bob]
ack katy
21:35:55 [dug]
I have no idea what WSA 2.2 is
21:36:05 [dug]
lol
21:36:34 [asir]
Here it is http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-addr-metadata-20070627/#metadatinepr
21:38:53 [Katy]
Bob: I am disappointed that this issue did not get out at the time of issue morotorium
21:39:45 [asir]
q+
21:40:03 [Zakim]
-??P6
21:40:03 [Katy]
Ashok: Issue 7728 may include this and would be a good location for discussing this issue
21:40:45 [Yves]
same as Bob, don't want new issues to postpone LC indefinitely
21:42:25 [Katy]
ACTION: Asir to write up proposal with changes incoporated
21:42:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-130 - Write up proposal with changes incoporated [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2009-12-22].
21:42:39 [Ram]
Resolve with new proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Dec/0045.html
21:42:53 [Katy]
TOPIC: Issue 8200
21:43:27 [Ram]
Resolve with new proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Dec/0045.html
21:43:30 [Katy]
Dug: This is about the mex:all dialect uri
21:44:15 [Katy]
... but Gil also notices (8297) has a def of mex dialect from getmedata operation that is wrong
21:45:34 [Katy]
Bob: Any objections to resolving with message 45?
21:45:37 [Katy]
none
21:46:02 [Katy]
RESOLUTION: 8200 resolved with action described in message 45
21:46:11 [Katy]
TOPIC: Issue 8297
21:46:12 [dug]
8279: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Dec/0058.html
21:46:30 [dug]
s/8279/8297/
21:46:59 [Katy]
RESOLUTION: Issue 8297 resolved with proposal in message 58
21:47:51 [Katy]
TOPIC: Issue 8202
21:47:52 [Ram]
Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Dec/0048.html
21:48:08 [dug]
"When this repeating OPTIONAL element is present, the response MUST include only Metadata Sections corresponding to metadata specified by the combination of the URI, Identifier and Content attributes of each of the Dialect elements. For each Dialect element if there is no metadata for that combination of attributes then the response MUST NOT include any Metadata Sections for that Dialect element."
21:49:00 [Katy]
RESOLUTION: Issue 8202 resolved with message 48
21:50:03 [Katy]
TOPIC: Issue 8205
21:50:07 [dug]
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8205
21:51:20 [dug]
q+
21:51:50 [Bob]
ack asir
21:52:05 [Katy]
Asir: From mailing list - intent is a single element and so we should change schema/text to indicate that it is unique
21:52:25 [gpilz]
q+
21:52:31 [dug]
q-
21:52:32 [asir]
q+
21:52:33 [Bob]
ack dug
21:52:37 [Bob]
ack gpi
21:52:50 [Katy]
dug: as there's an xs:any element, we can't prevent multiple mex:md anyhow so there's no point in making it unique
21:53:09 [Bob]
ack asir
21:53:27 [dug]
q+
21:53:42 [Katy]
Gil: having individual metadata:section elements in each mex:metadata is no different from multiple metadatasections in one mex:metadata
21:54:20 [gpilz]
mex:Metadata(A, B) == mex:Metadata(A) + mex:Metadata(B)
21:54:21 [Bob]
ack dug
21:54:29 [Katy]
Asir: What we are actually discussing is optimal syntactic form. We should have use case for multiple
21:54:52 [Katy]
Dug: I am happy to write up Gil's issue
21:54:59 [gpilz]
q+
21:55:10 [Yves]
why can't multiple MEX entries be alternatives and not complement each other?
21:55:25 [Yves]
if you have no control, you have no control on the meaning
21:55:31 [asir]
agree with Yves
21:55:34 [Katy]
Asir: this doesn't fix it. I would like to understand a motivation. WS-T fixes the extensibility so why can't we
21:56:10 [Katy]
Dug: ws-t isn't the same problem
21:56:19 [dug]
q+
21:56:39 [asir]
q+
21:57:08 [Katy]
Gil: There are advantages in having multiple mex:metadata sections in an EPR if multiple components are working on different sections
21:57:08 [Bob]
ack gpi
21:57:18 [Bob]
ack dug
21:57:29 [Katy]
... I don't understand the motivation of imposing a restriction instead of just having one
21:57:58 [Bob]
ack asir
21:58:21 [Katy]
Dug: mex:medatadata has extensibility points. Having multiple mex:metadata elements allows folk to have different extensibility elements for each - not restricted to one
21:58:53 [Katy]
Asir: Gil's point is a programming API - a serialisation issue so it's not relevant
21:59:32 [Katy]
... I would like to see a proposal written up with reasons for this function
22:00:02 [gpilz]
q+
22:00:10 [dug]
q+
22:00:23 [Katy]
Yves: If there are multiple mex:metadata elements, then there would be no way of indicating the relationship between the various mex:metadatasections
22:00:35 [asir]
Bob: we have to leave for another meeting
22:00:41 [Bob]
ack gpi
22:00:50 [dug]
q-
22:01:03 [Katy]
bob: this discussion will go to the email list as out of time
22:01:09 [Zakim]
- +0759029aaaa
22:01:14 [asir]
Happy holidays to everyone!!!
22:01:19 [asoldano]
+1
22:01:29 [Zakim]
-Tom_Rutt
22:01:35 [Zakim]
-[Microsoft]
22:01:37 [Zakim]
-asoldano
22:01:37 [Zakim]
-Doug_Davis
22:01:38 [Zakim]
-Yves
22:01:38 [Zakim]
- +1.408.970.aaee
22:01:38 [Zakim]
- +984999aaii
22:01:38 [Yves]
bye all!
22:01:39 [Zakim]
-Bob_Freund
22:01:40 [Zakim]
- +0207202aagg
22:01:42 [Zakim]
-MartinC
22:01:43 [Zakim]
-li
22:01:50 [Zakim]
-Ashok_Malhotra
22:01:54 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:01:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/12/15-ws-ra-minutes.html Bob
22:01:59 [MartinC]
MartinC has left #ws-ra
22:02:02 [Zakim]
- +1.408.642.aahh
22:02:03 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
22:02:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were Doug_Davis, +0759029aaaa, Bob_Freund, [Microsoft], +039331574aabb, li, +984999aacc, +3531498aadd, +1.408.970.aaee, +039331574aaff, asoldano, MartinC, Tom_Rutt,
22:02:06 [Zakim]
... Ashok_Malhotra, +0207202aagg, Yves, +1.408.642.aahh, +984999aaii
22:04:54 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
22:05:34 [Yves]
trackbot, end telcon
22:05:34 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
22:05:34 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
22:05:35 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
22:05:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/12/15-ws-ra-minutes.html trackbot
22:05:36 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
22:05:36 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/15-ws-ra-actions.rdf :
22:05:36 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Gil to produce some specifics for 8284 that reflect the relevant aspects for ws-ra [1]
22:05:36 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/15-ws-ra-irc#T20-57-58
22:05:36 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Gilbert to produce some specifics for 8284 that reflect the relevant aspects for ws-ra [2]
22:05:36 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/15-ws-ra-irc#T21-00-45
22:05:36 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Asir to write up proposal with changes incoporated [3]
22:05:36 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/15-ws-ra-irc#T21-42-25