IRC log of ws-ra on 2010-01-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:45:20 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
16:45:20 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:45:22 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:45:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
16:45:24 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
16:45:24 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
16:45:25 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
16:45:25 [trackbot]
Date: 26 January 2010
16:48:40 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
16:52:22 [dug]
16:52:46 [dug]
16:52:47 [DaveS]
Hi Tom
16:53:02 [Tom_Rutt]
Hi , let me know when to dial in
16:55:45 [Sreed]
Sreed has joined #ws-ra
16:57:04 [Bob]
Bob has joined #ws-ra
16:58:26 [Bob]
Yves is working on the zakin dial-up issues
16:58:40 [asoldano]
asoldano has joined #ws-ra
16:59:23 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
17:02:14 [Tom_Rutt]
"the conference is restricted" message is on the phone
17:02:30 [dug]
they're working on it
17:02:59 [Zakim]
ok, Yves; conference Team_(ws-ra)17:02Z scheduled with code 26633 (CONF3) for 480 minutes until 0102Z
17:03:54 [Zakim]
Team_(ws-ra)17:02Z has now started
17:04:01 [Zakim]
17:04:17 [Zakim]
17:04:54 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
17:05:25 [Zakim]
+ +39.331.574.aaaa
17:06:30 [Zakim]
17:06:51 [asoldano]
Zakim, aaaa is asoldano
17:06:51 [Zakim]
+asoldano; got it
17:10:08 [li]
can't dial in 1-617-761-6200, says "conference is restricted at this time"
17:10:29 [asoldano]
li, use code 26633
17:11:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.908.696.aabb
17:11:36 [dug]
zakim, aabb is Li
17:11:36 [Zakim]
+Li; got it
17:11:42 [li]
thanks, asoldano
17:11:46 [asoldano]
np li
17:12:10 [Bob]
17:13:08 [DaveS]
Topic: Agenda discussion
17:14:20 [DaveS]
Request for the following issues for tomorrow from Ram:
17:14:30 [dug]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:14:41 [Zakim]
dug, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: asoldano (15%), [Fujitsu] (66%)
17:15:18 [DaveS]
6435, 6436, 8196, 8205, 8290
17:16:38 [DaveS]
These will be dealt with tomorrow.
17:17:25 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
17:17:57 [DaveS]
Topic: 6433, 7728, 8031
17:18:52 [dug]
MOAP doc:
17:19:23 [DaveS]
Doug reviewed the above document.
17:19:27 [DaveS]
Key Points:
17:19:36 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
17:19:51 [DaveS]
- How do we advertice "feature" WSDL?
17:20:19 [DaveS]
- Then how do we distinguish the different types of WSDL?
17:20:33 [li]
sorry have to drop off for an urgent call
17:20:39 [Zakim]
17:20:52 [DaveS]
The proposal moves the feature wsdl to a position after the advertizement of the feature in the policy assertion.
17:21:02 [Zakim]
+ +03531803aacc
17:22:22 [DaveS]
It also provides a WSDL Mex request only returns the application WSDL. The others come from the assertions.
17:22:28 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
17:22:29 [Tom_Rutt]
17:22:31 [DaveS]
17:22:40 [Bob]
ack tom
17:23:04 [DaveS]
Tom: Could the feature WSDL ever also be an application WSDL?
17:23:24 [DaveS]
Doug: Yes, but probably out of scope of this WG.
17:25:36 [DaveS]
Asir: For clarity, we are talking about associating metadata (e.g. WSDL) with the feature policy assertion?
17:25:41 [DaveS]
Doug: Yes.
17:26:44 [DaveS]
Doug: the proposal is general in the sense that it associates metadata with it feature assertion.
17:27:48 [DaveS]
Gil: Asserts that Eventing specifies only one WSDL for an endpoint.
17:28:21 [DaveS]
Confirmed A.2.1 of eventing
17:29:04 [DaveS]
Doug: The point may be valid if there are multiple WSDLs associated with the assertion.
17:29:26 [DaveS]
The policy creator has the option to do it however, the need.
17:30:09 [DaveS]
Asir: How do we reference multipl schema docs.
17:30:27 [DaveS]
Doug: Thses would be included (via includes) in the WSDL.
17:31:28 [DaveS]
Ram: Are we restricting this to one artefact?
17:32:35 [DaveS]
Dooug: Short answer - no restriction, but guiadance to wrap these based on the feature type.
17:34:04 [DaveS]
There was a short detour into Paul's concerns.
17:34:48 [DaveS]
Doug: The same pattern may apply to Paul's issues.
17:35:22 [DaveS]
Asir: Asir believes that there is a different pattern.
17:35:38 [DaveS]
Look at the transfer assertion, a QName only.
17:36:29 [dug]
<wst:Resource ...> xs:QName </wst:Resource>
17:37:08 [DaveS]
Doug: This QName referes the type.
17:37:40 [Ram]
17:39:28 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
17:40:14 [Ram]
Asir: There is a resource policy assertion param, that indicates the QName.
17:40:21 [Ram]
Asir: Do you want to use the same pattern?
17:41:22 [DaveS]
Doug: the problem is not really knowing which element in the collection would refer to the resource type.
17:42:09 [DaveS]
Asir: Can we use the same patter in both plces?
17:42:44 [DaveS]
Doug: Feels they are different, because in the Ws-T case we don't know which is refeing to the resources.
17:42:59 [Bob]
17:43:43 [Bob]
17:44:24 [DaveS]
Doug: Basically, each feature would have it's own WSDL.
17:44:55 [DaveS]
Asir: The same forother features, e.g. frag's dialect assertion.
17:45:14 [Bob]
s/forother/for other/
17:46:20 [Tom_Rutt]
17:46:31 [Tom_Rutt]
17:46:31 [DaveS]
Asir: Would like to study more.So on to the next bit.
17:46:47 [DaveS]
17:47:28 [DaveS]
- Need a list of assetions where this applies?
17:47:47 [DaveS]
- Need to identift the assertions where extenibility need to be addressed.
17:47:58 [DaveS]
- Does this apply to Paul's issue?
17:48:44 [DaveS]
Doug: For the first, we can do it for the specs we control, but other should be encouraged to follow the pattern.
17:50:27 [DaveS]
It is not clear what the question about WS-T means.
17:51:33 [Bob]
17:51:56 [DaveS]
- We need to make the ecommendation to other users explicit.
17:52:18 [DaveS]
Example walk through:
17:52:44 [DaveS]
See WSDL+EventSource.
17:53:57 [DaveS]
This shows how to assert that Eventing is supported.
17:54:17 [DaveS]
See: Next section
17:54:57 [DaveS]
This one defines event description metadata.
17:55:01 [DaveS]
17:55:17 [DaveS]
This one shows how to add WSDL.
17:56:52 [DaveS]
This example may help with the WSDD discussion.
17:57:11 [DaveS]
Ram: This does seem to work, but ....
17:57:36 [DaveS]
Asir: The mail suggestes that it needs to be more abstract
17:57:46 [DaveS]
Doug: E.g. in the PortType.
17:59:05 [DaveS]
Bob: Assuming that we are happy with this approach, then the WSDD might be solved by moving this to the PortType.
17:59:23 [DaveS]
Next Example:
18:00:13 [DaveS]
This one inlines a specific WS-Eventing WSDL document.
18:00:35 [DaveS]
This one provides a specific (different) address for events.
18:00:48 [DaveS]
Next Example:
18:01:04 [DaveS]
Sam as above, but links to metadat rather tan inlined.
18:02:01 [DaveS]
Two approaches are shown.
18:02:20 [DaveS]
Asir: These are new features:
18:03:53 [DaveS]
Doug: Include new feature for Mex (two flavours)
18:04:38 [DaveS]
There seems to be a slight difference from the pattern in the Mex document.
18:05:19 [DaveS]
Asir: Are the semantics dependent onthe semantics of the parrent?
18:05:32 [Zakim]
18:05:49 [DaveS]
Doug: MEX does not say anything specific.
18:06:43 [DaveS]
So this association may move the semantics, e.g use an include here rather than inlining.
18:07:03 [DaveS]
Asir: Why not add a new context free element?
18:07:43 [DaveS]
Doug: Do we add new elements to Mex.
18:08:18 [DaveS]
Asir: No, use new generic elements.
18:08:45 [DaveS]
Doug: Good point, don't use the element from eslewhere.
18:08:57 [DaveS]
Asir: Sounds good.
18:09:13 [DaveS]
See example Metadat in an EPR
18:09:58 [DaveS]
As before the exaples forllow a progressing addition of more complexity.
18:11:57 [DaveS]
Review the Summary section:
18:14:34 [DaveS]
The EPR discussion may be ssociated to another issue, but not critical here.
18:15:05 [DaveS]
Consider droping this issue here and deal with it under the other issue.
18:15:43 [DaveS]
Need to check carefully which issues are closed by this approach.
18:16:12 [DaveS]
See section "One of the nice things ...."
18:16:45 [DaveS]
All metadata could appear in one place.
18:16:47 [Tom_Rutt]
which bullet?
18:17:18 [DaveS]
See beginning of the document.
18:18:10 [DaveS]
By using the ?wsdl (or mex.GetMetadata("wsdl") mapping is very easy to explain.
18:18:47 [DaveS]
Asir: Currently their is no equivalent to ?wsdl.
18:19:38 [DaveS]
Gil: The application gets to descide what "wsdl" means.
18:21:20 [DaveS]
It is unclear what ?wsdl means, so it make this dificult to define.
18:22:01 [DaveS]
Gil: The app developer could create a single document (mostly like ?wsdl).
18:23:58 [DaveS]
Gil: Get Metedata can return a lot of stuff. get wsdl would return just one wsdl.
18:24:59 [DaveS]
Doug: A get wesdl operation that colsely follows "wsdl pattern.
18:25:15 [DaveS]
18:25:48 [DaveS]
Jeff: What do I need to know to use the bag of stuf.
18:26:08 [DaveS]
Doug: this proposal aim to address this problem.
18:27:28 [DaveS]
Jeff: The get wsdl at least we know the schema of what comes gack.
18:27:37 [DaveS]
18:28:45 [DaveS]
A diversion about giving up on GetMetadat entirely.
18:30:00 [MartinC]
isnt that a meta-meta model jeff
18:30:03 [DaveS]
Asir: Some advanced tools can deal with less information.
18:31:10 [DaveS]
Doug: Let's do this and talk about some other details later.
18:31:26 [DaveS]
Jeff: the metamodel of WSDL is available.
18:31:53 [DaveS]
Bob: Are we agreed that this is a good road to fiollow?
18:32:17 [DaveS]
Doug: Next step is to make the Mex and Eventing spec cahnges.
18:32:59 [DaveS]
Asir: Why don't we make Doug do them all?
18:33:14 [DaveS]
Bob: Only if Asir is really happy with the approach.
18:33:57 [DaveS]
Asir: There are some bullets that need addressing. Doug should go for all of them in all the pecs and let's push forward.
18:34:00 [Zakim]
18:34:11 [DaveS]
Specific on the new elements.
18:34:59 [DaveS]
Doug: Wants agreement generall and will attack the spec ASAP.
18:35:23 [DaveS]
Resloution: We have directional agreement based on the 5 bullets avove.
18:35:35 [DaveS]
Fresh names.
18:35:39 [DaveS]
get WSDL.
18:35:55 [DaveS]
Postpone Paul's issue when we get there.
18:36:18 [DaveS]
List of assertions.
18:36:43 [DaveS]
Recommendation to other spec writers
18:36:52 [DaveS]
Policy assertion on the porttype.
18:37:35 [Tom_Rutt]
what is next?
18:38:45 [DaveS]
Since Martin is here 7986 will be next.
18:38:57 [DaveS]
Break to 10:50 PST
18:38:57 [Zakim]
18:39:10 [DaveS]
Topic: 7986
18:41:57 [Tom_Rutt]
Do we know when will 8196 and 8229 (namespace issues) be discussed?
18:42:23 [Zakim]
18:48:09 [Zakim]
18:51:14 [Bob]
tom, sometime this afternoon I hope
18:52:12 [DaveS]
18:52:14 [MartinC]
18:53:17 [DaveS]
Toipc: 7986
18:53:53 [Zakim]
18:54:15 [Bob]
18:54:22 [DaveS]
How does the EventSink know the available policies available?
18:54:27 [Bob]
18:55:13 [DaveS]
Gil: An event source can send notification.
18:55:24 [DaveS]
The sink can say, please do it this way.
18:55:50 [DaveS]
This can be placed in the notify EPR.
18:56:12 [DaveS]
How does the sink know what approaches are likely to work.
18:57:11 [DaveS]
Doug: If the source can publich notification wsdls this is a sloution
18:57:28 [DaveS]
But thsi si not required, e.g. it uses event descriptions.
18:58:03 [Bob]
s/thsi si/this is/
18:58:06 [DaveS]
No concrete proposal yet.
18:58:28 [Bob]
18:58:49 [asir]
18:58:52 [DaveS]
DaceS: Is this really needed?
18:58:58 [Bob]
ack mart
18:59:03 [Bob]
ack asir
18:59:27 [DaveS]
Doug: Forcing use of not. wsdl or fault driven discovery is not good enough.
18:59:46 [DaveS]
Without not WSDL where is thin information available.
19:00:00 [DaveS]
19:01:15 [DaveS]
Doug: Because Not. WSDL is not required, but for this bit of information to be available, this is the only way at present.
19:02:11 [DaveS]
Asir; This is providing policy for the next level of interaction. Similar to Paul's request.
19:02:21 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
19:03:19 [DaveS]
Doug: Proposal to define another policy parameter that could be used in a notify to EPR.
19:03:50 [wchou]
wchou has joined #ws-ra
19:03:56 [DaveS]
Gil: Identify all the available poilcies and provide only the ID.
19:04:05 [DaveS]
Doug: Is this possible?
19:04:21 [DaveS]
Asir: You can used named policy assertions.
19:04:40 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
19:05:01 [DaveS]
Asir: You can name the policy assertion.
19:05:58 [DaveS]
A list of experssion can each have a name, but an expression with alternative won't fly.
19:07:14 [DaveS]
Resoultion: This seems a reasonable (if not very tasty) direction.
19:07:18 [asir]
s/name the policy assertion/name the policy./
19:07:53 [DaveS]
Topic: 8180
19:08:15 [DaveS]
Topic: 8198
19:08:17 [dug]
19:08:56 [asir]
19:09:02 [DaveS]
Doug: Should be covered by the MOAF proposal.
19:09:24 [DaveS]
The support for that resolution being allowed on the portType as well.
19:09:25 [Bob]
19:09:51 [DaveS]
Fred Maciel Joins
19:10:42 [DaveS]
Gil: A portType now could include binding specific policy.
19:10:58 [dug]
19:10:59 [DaveS]
This is not really a good idea.
19:11:20 [DaveS]
An advisory could probably be added, here.
19:11:28 [Bob]
ack asir
19:11:29 [wchou]
19:12:02 [DaveS]
Asir: Accouring to Anton there is something about the associatin cardinality rules.
19:12:41 [DaveS]
WU; We know how to do the bindings, but just need the abstract information (ie the association.
19:13:00 [gpilz]
19:13:35 [DaveS]
Doug: This should be possible at the portType level.
19:14:16 [DaveS]
Doug: It may be silly to put binding info in the portType, but so what. It could also be profilesd.
19:14:38 [gpilz]
19:16:20 [dug]
19:16:40 [DaveS]
Gil: It seems that we might be agreeing. The parameters are important.
19:16:57 [DaveS]
they have WSDLs, therefore you have to support ti
19:17:02 [DaveS]
19:17:38 [DaveS]
Wu: You only do the matching at the assertion level. The parameters provide further information.
19:17:54 [DaveS]
Gil: These parameters are surely important.
19:17:57 [MartinC]
zakim, who is making noise?
19:18:09 [Zakim]
MartinC, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Fujitsu] (76%)
19:18:40 [Bob]
ack wu
19:19:03 [DaveS]
Wu: It is untamately no proble to provide binding information in both places.
19:19:28 [DaveS]
Resolution: This one should be closed along with MOAP
19:19:37 [DaveS]
Topic: 8275
19:20:07 [Bob]
19:20:45 [wchou]
wchou has joined #ws-ra
19:21:09 [fmaciel]
fmaciel has joined #ws-ra
19:21:18 [DaveS]
Gil: What can we say to push developer toward a recommended dialect.
19:21:36 [DaveS]
Shold we point to XPath 1.0
19:22:37 [Bob]
Support fort he XPath 1.0 dialect (described below) is RECOMMENDED. Alternate filter
19:22:38 [Bob]
dialects can be defined. Such dialect definitions MUST include sufficient
19:22:40 [Bob]
information for proper application.
19:23:06 [DaveS]
Resolved: 8275 as indicated by Bob above.
19:24:21 [DaveS]
Gil: Is this implying that filter is recommended.
19:24:30 [Bob]
If filtering is supported, then support for the XPath 1.0 dialect (described below) is RECOMMENDED. Alternate filter dialects can be defined. Such dialect definitions MUST include sufficient information for proper application.
19:24:47 [DaveS]
Resolution: 8275 as above.
19:25:36 [DaveS]
Doug: Does this apply to Enum as well?
19:26:00 [DaveS]
Doug: There is a place for this in Enum.
19:26:55 [DaveS]
Reslolution: 8275 can aslo apply to Enumeration.
19:27:16 [DaveS]
Topic: 8288
19:27:35 [DaveS]
19:28:08 [DaveS]
Gil: There is a proposal and it's a good one.
19:28:34 [DaveS]
Resolved: As proposed modifiec by comment #1 (8288)
19:29:17 [DaveS]
Topic: 8299
19:30:25 [DaveS]
Ram: there is a dependency between this one and 8303
19:30:39 [DaveS]
19:30:54 [DaveS]
19:31:23 [DaveS]
Ram: These look like the same issue.
19:31:50 [dug]
19:33:19 [DaveS]
Ram: Targets two messages (Create/Put Response). Have a look at the text changes.
19:33:53 [DaveS]
The curx is that there is something unclear about what happen with extension elements.
19:34:20 [DaveS]
Doug: Works for no extension element, but what about when they are there?
19:34:52 [DaveS]
Ram: Today the spec requires that you need to have the representation.
19:35:35 [DaveS]
Asir: Say the rep comes first the extensions.
19:35:51 [DaveS]
19:36:02 [DaveS]
19:37:16 [DaveS]
Ram: In the spec, the response says the rep. must be there. Same in Create and Put.
19:37:33 [DaveS]
Doug: Likes the Put Response wording.
19:38:22 [DaveS]
Gil: Put response sounds good until the last sentence. (assuming mutating ....)
19:38:57 [DaveS]
Ram: What this means is that there may be other changes made concurrently.
19:39:30 [DaveS]
Gil: this may confuse some implementations.
19:39:43 [DaveS]
Yves: This is good to say.
19:39:58 [DaveS]
Maybe a separete sentence could be better.
19:40:56 [DaveS]
Text requested:
19:41:41 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:44:45 [DaveS]
Ram is mailing the text to the mailing list.
19:45:20 [DaveS]
Gil: Does this work with 8299 as well as 8302?
19:45:41 [DaveS]
Doug: 8180 looks like a part of this as well?
19:46:07 [DaveS]
Maybe, but not now.
19:48:38 [asir]
Action: Doug to prepare a concrete proposal for issue 7986 based on the direction established by the Working Group
19:48:39 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-137 - Prepare a concrete proposal for issue 7986 based on the direction established by the Working Group [on Doug Davis - due 2010-02-02].
19:49:46 [asir]
q+ to ask an orthogonal question
19:49:51 [Bob]
19:49:56 [wchou]
19:50:04 [wchou]
19:52:09 [Ram]
Remove the sentence "This second child element, if present, MAY be an empty element depending on the resource representation." from the above proposal from CreateResponse.
19:53:37 [DaveS]
Gil: 8299 is addressed for put, but this may not be as clear for create response.
19:54:15 [DaveS]
Ram: First is the EPR then the representation.
19:54:23 [DaveS]
Gil: How do we know that?
19:55:02 [DaveS]
The porblem also exists in 8180
19:56:12 [DaveS]
Doug: Do we just drop thie extensibility in responses`?
19:58:08 [Tom_Rutt]
q+ on agenda timing question for 8196 and 8229
19:59:26 [DaveS]
We will do these two tomorrow.
19:59:56 [DaveS]
Break for one hour while we tweak the text.
19:59:58 [Bob]
ack asir
19:59:58 [Zakim]
asir, you wanted to ask an orthogonal question
20:00:01 [Bob]
ack ram
20:00:11 [Tom_Rutt]
20:01:28 [Zakim]
20:01:39 [Zakim]
20:01:47 [Zakim]
20:02:05 [Zakim]
20:04:01 [Zakim]
20:04:03 [Zakim]
Team_(ws-ra)17:02Z has ended
20:04:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were vikas, [Fujitsu], +39.331.574.aaaa, Tom_Rutt, asoldano, +1.908.696.aabb, Li, +03531803aacc, MartinC
20:08:44 [Bob]
rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight
20:32:48 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
21:01:48 [Zakim]
Team_(ws-ra)17:02Z has now started
21:01:54 [Zakim]
21:02:05 [Bob]
we resume
21:02:06 [Ram]
21:02:12 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
21:02:33 [Ram]
scribenick Ram
21:03:00 [Ram]
Continuing discussion on issue 8302 and 8299
21:03:02 [Ram]
Continuing discussion on issue 8302 and 8299
21:03:06 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
21:03:41 [Zakim]
21:03:42 [Bob]
proposal at
21:06:46 [Tom_Rutt]
gettin started yet?
21:06:47 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
21:07:03 [Bob]
we resume
21:07:25 [Ram]
Gil: Presents proposal
21:09:22 [Zakim]
21:09:44 [Ram]
21:09:51 [Bob]
ack ram
21:11:07 [Zakim]
21:11:31 [Bob]
continuing on 8302
21:12:46 [DaveS]
21:13:27 [Bob]
ack dave
21:13:39 [gpilz]
21:14:25 [Ram]
Dave: Does an extension in the request result in a subsequent extension in the response.
21:15:23 [dug]
21:15:34 [Ram]
Gil: Should the resource manager create a representation that differs from what was supplied.
21:15:55 [Ram]
21:16:45 [Ram]
Doug: The current text was intended to create a resource that is close enough to what was supplied.
21:16:58 [Ram]
Gil: The current text does not reflect that.
21:17:33 [Bob]
ack gp
21:17:41 [Bob]
ack dug
21:17:50 [Ram]
Dug: I am wondering if we should take a step back and approach this differently.
21:18:04 [Bob]
zakim, who is making noise
21:18:04 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', Bob
21:18:07 [Ram]
Dug: A Resource Manager can change the resource anytime.
21:18:18 [Bob]
zakim, who is noisy?
21:18:22 [Ram]
Dug: It may be useful to put a paragraph that states that above.
21:18:32 [Zakim]
Bob, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Fujitsu] (65%), MartinC (5%)
21:18:59 [Ram]
Dug: The other thing to do is, to look at the problem, and say the bare minimum.
21:20:18 [Ram]
Dug: The extensibility seems more important. But should the resource representation be returned?
21:21:21 [Bob]
21:21:43 [Ram]
Dug: Should the representation allow for explicit empty element.
21:22:33 [Bob]
ack ram
21:22:42 [gpilz]
21:24:17 [Ram]
Ram: Should we discuss 8180?
21:24:32 [Ram]
Bob: Park this discussion for the moment.
21:24:40 [Ram]
TOPIC issue 8180
21:24:45 [Ram]
21:25:05 [Ram]
21:25:15 [Bob]
proposal at
21:27:56 [Bob]
ack gpi
21:28:30 [Ram]
Gil: Should you return the resource representation?
21:29:05 [Ram]
21:30:26 [Ram]
Bob: Sending back a large representation as a result of a small change may not be useful.
21:32:13 [Bob]
ack ram
21:32:59 [dug]
21:33:06 [dug]
21:33:26 [Ram]
Ram: It may be useful to have empty representation form for Put and Create requests to null out the resource.
21:33:35 [Ram]
21:34:57 [Bob]
ack dug
21:35:01 [dug]
21:35:33 [Ram]
This empty resource may appear on all operations.
21:36:18 [Ram]
Then remove returning the resource representation from CreateResponse and PutResponse.
21:36:29 [Tom_Rutt]
can the scribe summarize?
21:36:58 [Ram]
s/This empty resource may appear on all operations/This empty resource must appear on all operations.
21:37:05 [Ram]
21:37:10 [dug]
1) if the representation is in a msg it must be wrapped with <wst:Resource/> no matter what operation we're talking about.
21:37:27 [Bob]
ack ram
21:39:11 [gpilz]
21:40:01 [dug]
21:40:50 [Bob]
ack gp
21:41:19 [Ram]
Ram: Having the representation in PutResponse and CreateResponse is complicated.
21:42:03 [Ram]
Gil: The resource may change change inadvertantly?
21:42:07 [Tom_Rutt]
21:42:10 [Ram]
21:42:14 [Ram]
21:42:33 [Bob]
ack \
21:42:44 [Bob]
ack dug
21:42:53 [Bob]
21:43:14 [Ram]
Doug: I agree with Gil.
21:43:55 [Bob]
ack tom
21:44:35 [dug]
Proposal: 1) add a paragraph in a generic spot that talks about how the res. mgr can modify the resource for a lot of reasons. 2) define/add <wst:Resource/> to all operations. 3) remove implicit Get for Put/Create-Response.
21:44:37 [Ram]
Tom:I am in favor of getting rid of the optimization.
21:44:38 [Ram]
Tom:I am in favor of getting rid of the optimization.
21:45:06 [Bob]
ack ram
21:46:27 [Ram]
Bob: Are folks OK with adding a wst:Resource element?
21:47:24 [Ram]
This allows distinguishing the representation from extension elements.
21:47:59 [Ram]
21:49:40 [Tom_Rutt]
21:50:50 [Bob]
ack bob
21:51:42 [Bob]
ack ram
21:53:05 [dug]
21:53:07 [Ram]
Dug: It is not good for the resource manager to return a huge representation in the response.
21:53:46 [dug]
Proposal: 1) add a paragraph in a generic spot that talks about how the res. mgr can modify the resource for a lot of reasons. 2) define/add <wst:Resource/> to all operations. 3) implicit Get - discuss tomorrow
21:53:53 [Bob]
ack dug
21:54:15 [DaveS]
21:55:21 [Zakim]
21:57:22 [Bob]
tom, your answer is happening now
21:59:30 [Ram]
Ram: How does the client know if the service created the resource as requested or not?
21:59:43 [Ram]
Doug: The service cannot guarantee at all.
22:00:38 [Ram]
Bob: 8299, 8302, and 8180 are woven together.
22:01:07 [Bob]
ack dave
22:01:43 [Ram]
Bob: Create a comprehensive proposal for all three issues.
22:03:11 [Ram]
Dave: I have some reservation about adding <wst:Resource/>.
22:03:19 [dug]
22:03:35 [Bob]
ack dug
22:03:54 [Ram]
Dug: I would rather have a model that all cases including extensions.
22:07:02 [Ram]
22:10:09 [Ram]
Criteria to consider:
22:10:13 [Ram]
1. Allow extensions.
22:10:49 [DaveS]
22:10:54 [Ram]
2. Diambiguate the representation <rep><A/></rep> vs <rep/>
22:11:32 [Ram]
3. The resource manager may do more to the created/updated resource than create.
22:12:31 [Zakim]
22:12:55 [Ram]
4. Ram: Investigate if there needs to be an resource representation in the CreateResponse and PutResponse.
22:13:33 [MartinC]
MartinC has left #ws-ra
22:14:52 [Ram]
Break for 15 minutes. Resume @ 30:30pm PT.
22:15:39 [Ram]
AI: Gil has the AI to prepare proposal for 8299, 8302, and 8180.
22:29:06 [Ram]
Bob: The session resumes after the break.
22:29:31 [dug]
22:29:45 [dug]
"For example, it would need to define the context (which data) over which the filter operates."
22:29:53 [Ram]
Dug: In our zeal to remove advertisement to XPath 1.0, we removed the above sentence.
22:31:09 [Tom_Rutt]
Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
22:31:35 [Ram]
The above amendment to 8275 was accepted without objections.
22:31:36 [Tom_Rutt]
tom rutt as youth:
22:31:53 [Bob]
Action: Gil has the AI to prepare proposal for 8299, 8302, and 8180.
22:31:53 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Gil
22:32:01 [Bob]
AI: Gilbert has the AI to prepare proposal for 8299, 8302, and 8180.
22:32:17 [Bob]
action: Gilbert has the AI to prepare proposal for 8299, 8302, and 8180.
22:32:18 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-138 - Has the AI to prepare proposal for 8299, 8302, and 8180. [on Gilbert Pilz - due 2010-02-02].
22:34:25 [Ram]
Bob: Is 7791 soaked up by MOAP proposal?
22:34:39 [Ram]
Dug: Yes, it should mostly.
22:35:10 [Ram]
TOPIC issue 7774
22:35:13 [Ram]
22:37:05 [Yves]
22:37:25 [Yves]
22:38:45 [Ram]
Bob: Discussions?
22:38:52 [Ram]
Yves: Looks good.
22:39:05 [Ram]
Bob: Any objections?
22:39:20 [Ram]
Issue 7774 resolved with above proposal.
22:39:40 [Ram]
TOPIC issue 8181
22:41:09 [dug]
22:41:52 [Ram]
Issue 8181 resolved as proposed.
22:42:28 [Ram]
TOPIC issue 8182
22:43:31 [Ram]
Gil: Someone convinced me that this was not a good idea.
22:44:57 [dug]
22:45:03 [Ram]
Dug: Suggest closing with no action since this is addressed.
22:45:42 [Ram]
Gil: This is not the case where you can look at the request is not valid.
22:46:05 [dug]
22:46:05 [Ram]
Gil: It is the case where it is only invalid because of the state of the resource at the point of the Put request.
22:48:41 [dug]
22:49:23 [Ram]
Gil: Is there a need for a special fault in this case?
22:50:33 [Ram]
Bob: Any objections to close with no action?
22:50:41 [Ram]
Issue 8182 closed with no action.
22:51:22 [Ram]
TOPIC issue 8191
22:52:26 [Ram]
Bob: Gil, what kind of serialization rules are necessary.
22:53:10 [Ram]
Asir: What serialization rules are being asked for?
22:53:28 [Ram]
Doug: This is NOT an editorial change.
22:56:29 [Ram]
Gil: There is no clarity on the WS-Fragment about how the serialization work with Put.
22:56:37 [Ram]
22:57:53 [Ram]
Dug: You can construct an XPath that points to multiple things.
22:59:23 [Ram]
Ram: How does this relate to the request from the XML Security WG about seperating out the XPath expressions from the core protocol?
23:00:20 [DaveS]
23:02:24 [Ram]
Gil: Can the Expression point to multiple nodes?
23:02:39 [Ram]
Bob: The purpose of XPath is essentially to address a point/location.
23:03:02 [Ram]
Bob: What can you do to that point is the question.
23:03:43 [Ram]
Bob: Are you going to change all the attributes in a single Fragment Put is a question?
23:03:58 [Ram]
Bob: It can get complex.
23:04:04 [Ram]
Bob: It can get complex.
23:04:59 [Ram]
23:06:28 [Ram]
Dug: The WS-Fragment says for XPath 1.0: "An XPath 1.0 expression MAY evaluate to multiple nodes; because of this the XPath 1.0 language MUST NOT be used with a "Put" or "Create" operation."
23:06:43 [Ram]
Gil: A clarification on the Put is sufficient.
23:07:20 [Ram]
ACTION ITEM Doug: Work with Gil on proposal.
23:07:20 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ITEM
23:09:27 [Ram]
TOPIC 8185
23:09:57 [Ram]
23:11:48 [Ashok]
ACTION: Dug to work with Gil on proposal for 8191
23:11:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-139 - Work with Gil on proposal for 8191 [on Doug Davis - due 2010-02-02].
23:13:28 [Bob]
ack ram
23:13:32 [Bob]
ack dave
23:14:00 [Bob]
Topic: 8185
23:16:44 [Ram]
Ram: This related to 8193.
23:17:23 [Ram]
Ram: The specification does not talk about inserting attribute nodes.
23:18:09 [Tom_Rutt]
hai: transport ack not application ack
23:18:24 [Ram]
Bob: We need some concrete text.
23:18:36 [Ram]
ACTION Gil: Produce concrete proposal.
23:18:36 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Gil
23:19:09 [Ram]
ACTION gpilz: Produce a concrete proposal.
23:19:09 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-140 - Produce a concrete proposal. [on Gilbert Pilz - due 2010-02-02].
23:19:16 [Ram]
TOPIC 8193
23:19:34 [dug]
23:19:49 [Ram]
23:20:41 [Ram]
23:21:30 [Ashok]
23:26:21 [Bob]
ack ashok
23:27:30 [Ram]
Ashok: We are going through these many difficult cases. We ought to remember that there is this specification called XQuery update which does all these. The XQuery has details on how to do the XML update.
23:30:57 [Bob]
ack ram
23:33:21 [Ram]
Dug: Having an attribute to indicate Insert instead of Replace would work for me.
23:34:37 [Tom_Rutt]
I am checking out for the day, hear you tomorrow morning
23:34:50 [Zakim]
23:35:32 [Ram]
Bob: Why can't you use an Insert for non-array nodes?
23:38:44 [Ashok]
XQuery update language:
23:38:50 [Ram]
Doug: In XPath can you do a nodename/*?
23:40:35 [Ram]
Doug: Can you insert an first child?
23:41:19 [Ram]
Bob: If the child count is zero, an insert will introduce the first child element.
23:42:33 [Ram]
Bob: Insert and Replace has distinct semantics.
23:43:34 [Ram]
Doug: Would it work in the case of attributes?
23:44:38 [Ram]
Bob: For replacement, you need to know the specific attribute.
23:46:31 [Ram]
Bob: I can write a conceptual outline.
23:46:40 [Ram]
23:47:08 [Ram]
ACTION Bob to produce a conceptual model
23:47:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-141 - Produce a conceptual model [on Bob Natale - due 2010-02-02].
23:47:14 [Bob]
ack ram
23:50:12 [Ashok]
23:50:22 [Ram]
Conversation on XPath semantics ensuing.
00:06:29 [Ram]
XPath allows you to point to a location. Insert and Replace allows you to manipulate data at that location or around it.
00:07:25 [Ram]
Break until 4:20pm PT
00:21:51 [Ram]
Session resumes.
00:23:02 [Ram]
TOPIC 8257
00:23:04 [Ram]
00:24:15 [Ram]
Bob: Any objections to resolve as proposed?
00:24:31 [Ram]
Issue 8257 resolved as proposed.
00:25:10 [Ram]
TOPIC 8258
00:28:17 [Ram]
Bob: Any objections to removing Create from "XPath 1.0 language MUST NOT be used with a "Put" or "Create" operation"?
00:31:56 [Ram]
Bob: Isn't it true that the ability to support multiple nodes dependent on the expression languages.
00:34:37 [Ram]
00:34:47 [Bob]
ack ram
00:36:30 [Ram]
ACTION Doug to investigate with Katy/Ian why the Put has to be restricted to first selected node.
00:36:30 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-142 - Investigate with Katy/Ian why the Put has to be restricted to first selected node. [on Doug Davis - due 2010-02-03].
00:37:41 [Ram]
Ram: It is important to separate the protocol semantics from expression language semantics.
00:37:58 [Ram]
Ram: The protocol should NOT disallow using sophisticated expression languages.
00:38:19 [Ram]
Ram: The specification should define at least one usable expression language.
00:38:35 [Ram]
TOPIC 8284
00:40:05 [Bob]
00:42:15 [gpilz]
00:43:19 [Wu]
00:43:19 [Bob]
ack gp
00:43:25 [Bob]
q JeffM
00:43:34 [Bob]
q+ JeffM
00:44:03 [Ram]
Ram describes his dissertation.
00:44:50 [Ram]
Gil: When implementation/tools point to WSDLs, what do I need to do a reasonable event sink?
00:45:21 [Ram]
Gil: I want to implement that derivations of the WS-Eventing WSDL is BP compliant.
00:45:46 [Ram]
Gil: So the implementations are interoperable.
00:46:35 [Bob]
ack wu
00:46:56 [Ram]
Wu: I don't think we can limit WS-Eventing binding only to HTTP or SOAP 1.2.
00:47:41 [Ram]
Correction: I don't think we can limit WS-Eventing binding only to HTTP or SOAP 1.1.
00:47:42 [Bob]
00:48:04 [Ram]
Wu: We should follow WS-Addressing and WS-Policy and follow their lead.
00:48:36 [Ram]
Wu: It is beyond scope of what we are attempting to do here.
00:48:44 [Bob]
Ack jeff
00:48:56 [Ram]
Jeff: If we leave it to people's good judgements, why do we need standards?
00:49:04 [Ram]
WSDL 1.1 is NOT a standard.
00:49:12 [Ram]
BP 1.1 is an ISO standard.
00:49:50 [Ram]
Jeff: We want to say WSDL 1.1 as modified by BP 1.1.
00:50:24 [asir]
00:50:54 [Ram]
Jeff: It is not to restrict what is allowed, but to ensure interoperability.
00:51:30 [Ram]
Wu: Why doesn't anyone complain about WS-Policy?
00:51:47 [Ashok]
WSDL 1.1 W3C Note 15 March 2001
00:51:54 [Bob]
ack asir
00:53:03 [Ram]
Asir: BP 1.2 and 2.0 when it becomes an Final Material can be useful but NOT Basic Profile 1.1.
00:57:47 [Ram]
00:58:21 [Ram]
Jeff: Should we defer until BP 2.0 is done.
00:59:08 [Ram]
Bob: You could do that.
01:00:05 [Ram]
Bob: Should we wait until BP 1.2 and 2.0 become Final Material?
01:01:30 [Ram]
Bob: We can safely defer this until after Last Call.
01:02:30 [dug]
01:02:33 [Bob]
ack ram
01:04:00 [Ram]
Jeff: Could we put some text in the specification to clarify use of WSDL 1.1?
01:04:19 [Ram]
Doug: Could we have a section in BP 1.2 and 2.0 that pertains specifically to fixing WSDL 1.1 issues only?
01:05:56 [dug]
01:07:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, [Fujitsu], in Team_(ws-ra)17:02Z
01:07:03 [Zakim]
Team_(ws-ra)17:02Z has ended
01:07:05 [Zakim]
Attendees were [Fujitsu], MartinC, Tom_Rutt, vikas
01:07:12 [Ram]
Asir: Should we consider closing this without prejudice and reopen it later?
01:07:26 [Ram]
Jeff: No we cannot close this. We should defer.
01:09:11 [Ram]
Bob: Should we defer this until after Last Call at least.
01:09:43 [Ram]
Bob: At least until CR.
01:09:58 [Ram]
Jeff: If we can come up with a proposal, we should consider resolving it.
01:13:38 [Ram]
Asir: What are the trip wires to process this issue?
01:14:46 [Ram]
Bob: 1) A new proposal 2) BP 1.2 and 2.0 are Final Material 3) We reach Candidate Recommendation and we decide what to do.
01:15:09 [Ram]
8284 is an Last Call issue.
01:15:51 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
01:15:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
01:15:53 [Ram]
Meeting is adjourned for the day.
01:15:59 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
01:15:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
01:16:03 [Ram]
Will meet at 9am PT tomorrow (2nd day of F2F).
01:16:07 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra
01:19:33 [fmaciel]
fmaciel has left #ws-ra
04:27:15 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ws-ra