IRC log of ws-ra on 2010-01-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:55:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
16:55:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:55:25 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:55:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ws-ra
16:55:27 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be WSRA
16:55:27 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA(F2F)11:00AM scheduled to start 55 minutes ago
16:55:28 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
16:55:28 [trackbot]
Date: 28 January 2010
16:55:50 [Bob]
chair: Bob Freund
16:56:12 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA(F2F)11:00AM has now started
16:56:19 [Zakim]
16:57:29 [asoldano]
asoldano has joined #ws-ra
16:57:30 [Bob]
17:00:19 [Vikas]
Vikas has joined #ws-ra
17:01:08 [Tom_Rutt]
Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
17:01:09 [gpilz]
gpilz has joined #ws-ra
17:01:16 [Sreed]
Sreed has joined #ws-ra
17:01:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.860.aaaa
17:01:55 [Zakim]
17:01:56 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
17:02:26 [Bob]
scribenick: Sreed
17:02:46 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
17:03:34 [Zakim]
17:04:01 [MartinC]
MartinC has joined #ws-ra
17:05:15 [Zakim]
17:05:20 [asoldano]
zakim, who's muted?
17:05:20 [Zakim]
I see asoldano muted
17:07:23 [Sreed]
TOPIC: 8157
17:08:04 [Ram]
Ram has joined #ws-ra
17:08:14 [Sreed]
Bob: I haven't seen any new progress on this
17:08:44 [dug]
17:09:13 [Sreed]
Ram: Eventing - event sync that there will no notifications, model eventing it is push - in case of enumeration consumer pulls
17:09:52 [Sreed]
dug: Enumering over ever going queue - waiting for this to pop up
17:10:09 [Sreed]
DaveS: first enumeration need to be generated - waiting
17:10:51 [Sreed]
DaveS: submitting jobs (current list of jobs) that there is no jobs in the queue
17:10:59 [Sreed]
dug: not necessary empty
17:11:03 [Bob]
ack dug
17:11:19 [Sreed]
Ram: can't process fault enumeration something got wrong with the fliter
17:11:31 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
17:11:54 [Sreed]
gpilz: there is difference b/w badly constructed filter and approriate filter
17:12:17 [MartinC]
MartinC has left #ws-ra
17:12:19 [MartinC]
MartinC has joined #ws-ra
17:13:26 [MartinC]
MartinC has left #ws-ra
17:13:29 [MartinC]
MartinC has joined #ws-ra
17:13:54 [Sreed]
Asir: will this condition ever occur?
17:15:55 [MartinC]
MartinC has left #ws-ra
17:15:57 [MartinC]
MartinC has joined #ws-ra
17:16:12 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
17:16:14 [Sreed]
RESOLUTION: 8157 is resolved as proposed - fault defintion will be modified approriately for the enumeration
17:16:45 [Sreed]
TOPIC: 8191
17:17:05 [Zakim]
17:17:14 [Sreed]
17:17:31 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
17:22:17 [dug]
In the case of a Put operation if the XPath expression selects more than one node, the implementation MUST return only the first selected node
17:22:49 [dug]
In the case of a Put operation if the XPath expression selects more than one node, the implementation MUST process only the first selected node
17:23:57 [Ashok]
Ashok has joined #ws-ra
17:24:34 [Sreed]
Ram: previously XPath 1.0 can evaluate multiple paths dont use Put
17:26:56 [Sreed]
RESOLUTION 8191 with comment no 5 in the issue description
17:27:51 [Sreed]
TOPIC: 8180, 8299, 8302
17:28:07 [gpilz]
17:28:59 [Zakim]
17:30:48 [Sreed]
gpilz: Reviewed the original proposal - questions how extended WS standardad, WST representation element looked into the optionality. First change WST get response
17:32:48 [Vikas1]
Vikas1 has joined #ws-ra
17:32:55 [Sreed]
dug: representation element becomes the complete representation - lloking at the element get response or it is different it is wst representation
17:33:20 [asir]
17:33:40 [Bob]
ack asir
17:34:04 [Sreed]
asir: I didnt see the conversation having benefits two different wrappers
17:34:34 [Sreed]
gpilz: wst representation extend authors they need can use it if not required
17:34:54 [Zakim]
17:35:20 [Sreed]
Ram: I want to establish the wrapper should be consistent it should serve the purpose for all the operations
17:35:56 [Sreed]
gpilz: it is the representaiton of the resource
17:36:09 [Sreed]
Ram: can it is be a partial representation
17:36:46 [Sreed]
Ram: people would start inventing their own wrappers
17:37:22 [Sreed]
gpilz: most reuse the wst specific to wrappers
17:38:42 [Sreed]
gpiliz: change is in wst:Put a representation allowing for an idea dialects - element must be present - base behaviour no dialects - extension authors to resue it or not
17:39:34 [Sreed]
Ram: when we do a wst:put full reprsentation now if choose fragment approach in that case I might not be using this representation it means to me representation it is used in full representation
17:40:03 [Sreed]
gpilz: wst:PutResponse can get representation element back - it is optional
17:40:20 [Sreed]
gpilz: samething for create & creatersponse didnt change
17:42:18 [Sreed]
gpilz: in case if there is no dialect - extension of base dialect & there is dialect it shouldnt be
17:42:54 [Sreed]
Ram: wst:put second sentense it is fine - assume there are no dialiects working on extensions - just a clarification
17:43:04 [Sreed]
gpilz: yes
17:43:41 [Sreed]
Ram: If i dont use dialects/extensions can I pass instruction in this representation element
17:44:51 [Sreed]
DaveS: put & create are different in this context
17:45:15 [Sreed]
Ram: my observation the represntation wrapper should contain the full representation
17:45:32 [Sreed]
dug: we need to have the word "full"
17:46:09 [Sreed]
Ram: use a dialect then will not have an element at all wrapper
17:46:20 [Sreed]
Ram: same applies to extension
17:52:51 [Zakim]
17:55:45 [Zakim]
18:00:42 [Sreed]
Ram: option send or not send back - question how as I client two possiblities get back the representation if I dont get back the repsentation about the update or create operation
18:01:06 [Sreed]
gpilz: client doesnt draw the semantic conclusion
18:01:51 [Sreed]
Ram: I send representation A & put response A the case is when you dont send me back B what do I conslude as what happened
18:03:03 [Sreed]
gpilz: two case, I do a put & get back the representation can I conclude is there a semantic different be/w two - I say no, it might be service can use the response can do any kind of conslusion you can do implict get
18:04:13 [Sreed]
Ram: Clinet <-> Service, possiblities get back A, get back B (modified) or nothing the modification proposed case-A get back A will know the representation
18:04:36 [Sreed]
Bob: might not the representation in this case
18:04:45 [Sreed]
DaveS: B is the same case
18:05:03 [Sreed]
dug: easier to jump to the end what sentense which requires
18:05:14 [Sreed]
dug: everybody understand this
18:05:28 [Sreed]
dug: what sentense is required
18:06:23 [Sreed]
Ram: In the case of nothing what I prefere the client to do in this case what ever is suppplied the service didnt make any modidications in the caseB I am not worried
18:06:35 [Sreed]
Bob: all the 3 response will have same information
18:07:02 [Sreed]
Bob: current spec - recieveinng A, recievingB & nothing returns the same
18:07:25 [Sreed]
Ram: when there is noting client side the service didnt make any change
18:08:32 [Sreed]
Bob: Some thing change the request or something different then asked
18:09:17 [Sreed]
Ram: Current model send an a, get back b what specs say send an a service knows as a - dont need to repeat -- client know about this
18:09:23 [Sreed]
Bob: what is means it sends back b
18:09:33 [Sreed]
Bob: is b really what it is
18:09:43 [dug]
Absence of this element can be interpreted as the update request was successfully processed in its entirety (assuming no intervening mutation operations are performed).
18:09:43 [Zakim]
- +1.703.860.aaaa
18:09:50 [Sreed]
Ram: Client needs a snapshot to work with
18:10:10 [Sreed]
dug: I asked for something & posted
18:10:59 [Sreed]
dug; is this what should be in spec
18:14:01 [dug]
Absence of this element implies that the updated representation does not differ from the supplied representation (assuming no intervening mutation operations are performed).
18:14:17 [Bob]
18:14:23 [Bob]
18:15:23 [Zakim]
18:15:54 [Sreed]
Bob: question - about this protocol I presuming the changes might occur processing the state some what done by the application, we have transfer proptocol using this protocol in some application - possible change in the applciation it is transfer itself? what is causing the resoucre representioon different
18:17:37 [Sreed]
Bob: concurrent changes at any time - false sense of security giving to client - what it did work - service filling buffer by the time client gets it message (nano seconds) - instance that client recieves the date it could be totally unreliable
18:18:54 [Sreed]
Bob: suggesting if you take the model response gets back extacly the way it is or diffrerent particular issue mention about the concurrency - put response in this situation could be harmful
18:19:04 [DaveS]
18:19:08 [gpilz]
18:19:14 [Bob]
ack bob
18:19:30 [Sreed]
Ram: Using the concurrency argument - I need to know what is do scope at the particiular request
18:19:46 [Sreed]
Bob: Processing for all the requests
18:20:35 [Sreed]
dug: there is a disconnect - what you get an put response & I think ram is saying on the data is represnted is accurate
18:20:46 [Sreed]
Bob: I am sggesting far better than doing that
18:22:24 [Bob]
ack gil
18:22:27 [Bob]
ack dave
18:22:33 [Sreed]
gpilz: know about the resource as what should do is get
18:22:39 [Ram]
18:22:45 [Bob]
ack gp
18:23:42 [Zakim]
18:24:04 [Sreed]
DaveS: data get back will not tell anything as a service I have infact there is no way send you back data where as completly open 7GB to send back there are so many cases cant be sure that empty representation sending hugh amount of data.
18:24:06 [Bob]
ack ram
18:24:21 [Sreed]
Ram: Clarification send something than change the time stamp
18:24:28 [Sreed]
DaveS: anything changes
18:24:46 [Sreed]
gpilz: represenattion is a full representation
18:25:46 [Sreed]
Ram: whether the services are obligated to ship back how do as I client what expectations not seeing any response back at the response
18:26:02 [Sreed]
DaveS: many of the erros might havent happened
18:26:15 [Sreed]
18:26:38 [Sreed]
gpilz: specs says something about this
18:27:28 [gpilz]
18:28:08 [MartinC]
unless its transactional;)
18:28:43 [MartinC]
18:29:24 [MartinC]
+1 to jeff - distributed systems 101
18:30:18 [Sreed]
Ram: I am fine with gpilz proposal
18:30:37 [Sreed]
Ram: are there any schema changes
18:30:55 [Sreed]
dug; I will take care of it
18:31:55 [Zakim]
18:32:13 [Sreed]
RESOLUTION: resolved 8180, 8299, 8302 as proposed in
18:36:30 [gpilz]
18:42:00 [Zakim]
18:47:36 [Sreed]
TOPIC: 8273
18:48:48 [Sreed]
RESOLUTION: 8273 as defer
18:48:59 [Sreed]
TOPIC: 8229
18:49:08 [Sreed]
gpilz: I dont have a proposal for this
18:49:39 [Sreed]
Asir: is this related to 8196
18:50:05 [Sreed]
Bob: combine 8196 & 8229
18:50:15 [Sreed]
gpilz: there might be different
18:50:39 [Sreed]
18:51:27 [Sreed]
gpilz: to use qualified names - request when evaluted resource would produce different results
18:51:34 [Sreed]
Ashok: what is the problem
18:52:01 [Sreed]
DaveS: mandate what we have full namespace - full qualified
18:52:12 [Zakim]
18:54:04 [Sreed]
gpilz: what is the first sentense means
18:54:39 [Tom_Rutt]
18:56:12 [Bob]
ack tom
18:57:34 [asir]
I like Yves' suggestion!
18:57:43 [Sreed]
Tom_Rutt: *: means full namespace so this would be approriate
18:58:30 [Tom_Rutt]
18:58:31 [Sreed]
gpilz: as clinet I need to know that before consutructing
18:59:29 [Sreed]
gpilz: what namespace bindings are significant means even I know the schema should have elements only having determination to do get different namespace I cant really evaluate need to have complete snapshot
18:59:49 [Sreed]
dug: last sentense we get what is required if that is ok then go for it
19:00:36 [Sreed]
Bob: how do we fix the second sentense
19:01:00 [Sreed]
gpilz: namespace bindling are significant for all the elments
19:01:06 [Sreed]
19:01:15 [Tom_Rutt]
If I do an xpath evaluation in an xml tool, if the expressions uses element names which are not namespace qualified, they will only work agains an input document which has that namespace as the default namespace
19:01:26 [Sreed]
Bob: the namespace is document in XPath - suggestion
19:01:47 [Tom_Rutt]
19:02:13 [Bob]
ack tom
19:02:40 [Sreed]
Tom_Rut: XPath has qualified when I am writing namespace prefix
19:03:06 [Sreed]
DaveS: Putting some not qualified Tom said it is going to match default namespace I am happy with it
19:05:21 [Sreed]
RESOLUTION: 8229 with removing the text in question
19:06:10 [Sreed]
19:06:35 [Sreed]
Bob: there is no proposal for this
19:06:57 [Sreed]
gpilz: I don;t understand it
19:07:11 [Sreed]
Bob: any proposal to clarify
19:09:14 [Sreed]
RESOLUTION: 8306 is deffered
19:09:55 [Sreed]
TOPIC: 8185
19:10:28 [Sreed]
gpilz: have we changes the modes siginficantly
19:10:41 [Sreed]
dug: we havent decided yet
19:11:07 [Sreed]
dug: I need to work with DaveS & bob on this
19:12:35 [Sreed]
TOPIC: 8258
19:13:42 [Sreed]
RESOLUTION: 8258 is closed as it is already addressed by other issue
19:15:35 [asir]
19:19:37 [Sreed]
TOPIC: 7728
19:20:10 [Sreed]
Bob: this is proposal6
19:20:51 [Sreed]
gpilz: goto section 7.2
19:21:33 [dug]
19:23:14 [Sreed]
gpilz: polices appear in meta data section which would apply to messages - what the end point policy - a single policy element can represent metadata second paragraph - Oracle & Microsoft disagree on it
19:23:33 [Wu]
Wu has joined #ws-ra
19:23:52 [Wu]
19:25:30 [asir]
19:26:18 [Bob]
ack asir
19:27:32 [gpilz]
19:28:33 [dug]
19:28:53 [Sreed]
asir: great progress - there are two points misleading part endpoint subject is defined policy attachement (editorial) & second - set the right expectations using the feature - expectations consume is aware or not aware off
19:29:24 [Bob]
ack gp
19:30:13 [Zakim]
19:32:49 [DaveS]
19:32:55 [MartinC]
MartinC has joined #ws-ra
19:33:19 [Tom_Rutt]
19:34:43 [asir]
sorry we are in the weeds :-)
19:35:13 [Zakim]
19:36:33 [Sreed]
gpilz: works in the case consumer knows what the EPR refferes to anybody gives an EPR something can figure it out
19:36:47 [Sreed]
asir: anybody is going to disagree
19:37:16 [Bob]
ack dave
19:37:21 [dug]
19:37:44 [Bob]
zakim, who is noisy
19:37:44 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is noisy', Bob
19:37:48 [asir]
here is a suggested first sentence ..
19:37:50 [asir]
it is desirable for components that provide EPRs to other components that are aware (or can be aware) of service metadata (such as format of messages and transmission protocol) to be able to efficiently communicate the effective policies
19:38:00 [Bob]
zakim, who is making noise?
19:38:11 [Zakim]
Bob, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: MartinC (46%)
19:38:40 [Sreed]
DaveS: goes back to my first question - spec that doesnt refer the elements policy that doesnt apply in the constraint - policy into an EPR something can be used it sounds like me something to do the EPR itself it can be stored in secured policy
19:38:53 [Tom_Rutt]
19:39:45 [Sreed]
DaveS: concern about putting statement EPR must have an endpoint as subject say that endpoint referes restrict any policy going into it
19:39:55 [Bob]
ack tom
19:40:58 [asir]
19:41:56 [Sreed]
Tom_Rutt: I am trying to come up with right word - putting a policy in EPR policy attachement with the endpoin the semantic means policy defintion that policy might impact for example whether to use anynomous/non-anynonous end point - approriate do that enpoint policy attachement it is approriate policy menas effecting the smaller levels - attaching policy entire WSDL using it
19:42:04 [Bob]
ack dug
19:42:29 [Sreed]
dug: I think what you are basically say dont pull policy any message exchange with the EPR
19:42:34 [dug]
Policy attached to an EPR in this manner MUST be able to be applied to any message exchange using the endpoint referenced by that EPR.
19:42:36 [Sreed]
Ashok: do you agree with it
19:42:50 [Tom_Rutt]
Any policy in the metadata of EPR has the interpretation that that policy is being attached at the endpoint policy subject level
19:43:30 [Tom_Rutt]
It would not be possible to use this mechanism in epr to attach different policy values for different operations supported by that endpoint wsdl.
19:43:39 [gpilz]
Policy attached to an EPR in this manner MUST be applicable to any message exchange using the endpoint referenced by that EPR.
19:43:57 [gpilz]
19:44:00 [Tom_Rutt]
You would need to get the whole wsdl for such details, using Mex getWsdl
19:44:48 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.860.aabb
19:45:08 [Vikas1]
Vikas1 has joined #ws-ra
19:45:48 [gpilz]
Policy attached to an EPR in this manner MUST be applicable to all message exchange using the endpoint referenced by that EPR.
19:46:02 [gpilz]
Policy attached to an EPR in this manner MUST be applicable to any message exchangesusing the endpoint referenced by that EPR.
19:46:56 [Bob]
19:47:04 [Tom_Rutt]
19:47:15 [gpilz]
Policy attached to an EPR in this manner MUST be applicable to all message exchanges using the endpoint referenced by that EPR.
19:48:02 [Bob]
ack asir
19:48:25 [Tom_Rutt]
The definition of a policy assertion type includes the semantics of what happens when you attach that policy assertion at the entpoint policy subject level. The details of "all messages" "all blue messages" "alll response mesages" etc are defined with the defintion of each policy assertion
19:49:42 [Sreed]
Asir: we have to define the policy endpoint subject
19:54:20 [Bob]
ack tom
19:55:32 [Bob]
20:04:06 [Bob]
20:05:54 [dug]
it is desirable for components that provide EPRs to other components that are aware (or can be aware) of service metadata (such as format of messages and transmission protocol) to be able to efficiently communicate the effective policies
20:05:57 [Ashok]
no, not quite yet, Martin
20:14:36 [gpilz]
Note, for this to be useful the EPR consumer needs to be aware of (or be capable of discovering) additional service metadata such as the format of messages and transmission protocol.
20:15:16 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
20:15:27 [Zakim]
20:15:30 [Zakim]
20:15:43 [Bob]
ressed until 1:15
20:16:15 [Zakim]
- +1.703.860.aabb
20:19:29 [Zakim]
20:19:54 [Zakim]
20:19:55 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA(F2F)11:00AM has ended
20:19:57 [Zakim]
Attendees were [Fujitsu], +1.703.860.aaaa, asoldano, Tom_Rutt, MartinC, Li, +1.703.860.aabb
21:11:47 [Bob]
zakim, this will be WS_WSRA
21:11:47 [Zakim]
ok, Bob; I see WS_WSRA(F2F)11:00AM scheduled to start 311 minutes ago
21:12:03 [Bob]
rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight
21:23:53 [Bob]
we are dialig back and will resume in a moment
21:24:12 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA(F2F)11:00AM has now started
21:24:19 [Zakim]
21:30:23 [Bob]
Topic: 6436
21:30:48 [Bob]
21:31:11 [Zakim]
21:31:40 [Vikas1]
Vikas1 has joined #ws-ra
21:32:20 [Sreed]
DaveS: It doesnt have creating state
21:32:31 [Sreed]
DaveS: we have consumer & source
21:53:41 [Zakim]
21:54:41 [MartinC]
zakim, who is on the call
21:54:41 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the call', MartinC
22:30:49 [Sreed1]
Sreed1 has joined #ws-ra
22:31:37 [Zakim]
22:32:07 [Sreed]
Sreed has joined #ws-ra
22:35:38 [asir]
asir has joined #ws-ra
22:49:10 [Sreed]
RESOLUTION: 6436 has documented & pending action on editor
22:49:23 [Sreed]
TOPIC: 6435
22:50:01 [Bob]
Li's comment
22:50:18 [Sreed]
22:52:04 [Sreed]
Bob: empty cells not described by the spec
22:53:22 [DaveS]
DaveS has joined #ws-ra
22:57:02 [MartinC]
zakim, who is here
22:57:02 [Zakim]
MartinC, you need to end that query with '?'
22:57:13 [MartinC]
zakin, you are stupid
22:57:19 [MartinC]
22:57:39 [MartinC]
22:58:25 [Zakim]
22:58:33 [MartinC]
22:58:35 [MartinC]
MartinC has left #ws-ra
23:32:39 [asir]
this is an appendix
23:34:21 [Sreed]
RESOLUTION: 6435 as documented & pending action on editor
23:39:50 [dug]
23:39:59 [Sreed]
TOPIC: 8196
23:40:15 [Bob]
23:40:33 [Sreed]
dug: scroll down section-6 & one paragraph changed
23:44:16 [Sreed]
Bob: Any objection for accepting the proposal
23:47:47 [Sreed]
RESOLUTION: close 8196 & apply the resolution of frag as proposed
23:51:08 [Sreed]
Bob: next meeting Feb 9th - All the remaining proposals to be discused & 2119, any questions
23:58:08 [Sreed]
Bob: 2//10 - snapshot , 2/16 - incorporate issues & last call - vote
23:59:00 [Sreed]
Bob: 2/23 - published
23:59:37 [Sreed]
Bob: 3/2 - Open "x" last call issues
00:05:45 [Sreed]
RESOLUTION: working draft of WS - Event descriptor specification
00:11:58 [Bob]
thank you, Fujitsu for hosting
00:12:34 [Bob]
rrsagent, generate minutes
00:12:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Bob
00:17:37 [Zakim]
00:17:38 [Zakim]
WS_WSRA(F2F)11:00AM has ended
00:17:40 [Zakim]
Attendees were [Fujitsu], Li, MartinC
00:32:01 [gpilz]
gpilz has left #ws-ra