16:55:23 RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra 16:55:23 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-ws-ra-irc 16:55:25 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:55:25 Zakim has joined #ws-ra 16:55:27 Zakim, this will be WSRA 16:55:27 ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA(F2F)11:00AM scheduled to start 55 minutes ago 16:55:28 Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference 16:55:28 Date: 28 January 2010 16:55:50 chair: Bob Freund 16:56:12 WS_WSRA(F2F)11:00AM has now started 16:56:19 +[Fujitsu] 16:57:29 asoldano has joined #ws-ra 16:57:30 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0186.html 17:00:19 Vikas has joined #ws-ra 17:01:08 Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra 17:01:09 gpilz has joined #ws-ra 17:01:16 Sreed has joined #ws-ra 17:01:29 + +1.703.860.aaaa 17:01:55 +asoldano 17:01:56 dug has joined #ws-ra 17:02:26 scribenick: Sreed 17:02:46 DaveS has joined #ws-ra 17:03:34 +Tom_Rutt 17:04:01 MartinC has joined #ws-ra 17:05:15 +MartinC 17:05:20 zakim, who's muted? 17:05:20 I see asoldano muted 17:07:23 TOPIC: 8157 17:08:04 Ram has joined #ws-ra 17:08:14 Bob: I haven't seen any new progress on this 17:08:44 q+ 17:09:13 Ram: Eventing - event sync that there will no notifications, model eventing it is push - in case of enumeration consumer pulls 17:09:52 dug: Enumering over ever going queue - waiting for this to pop up 17:10:09 DaveS: first enumeration need to be generated - waiting 17:10:51 DaveS: submitting jobs (current list of jobs) that there is no jobs in the queue 17:10:59 dug: not necessary empty 17:11:03 ack dug 17:11:19 Ram: can't process fault enumeration something got wrong with the fliter 17:11:31 asir has joined #ws-ra 17:11:54 gpilz: there is difference b/w badly constructed filter and approriate filter 17:12:17 MartinC has left #ws-ra 17:12:19 MartinC has joined #ws-ra 17:13:26 MartinC has left #ws-ra 17:13:29 MartinC has joined #ws-ra 17:13:54 Asir: will this condition ever occur? 17:15:55 MartinC has left #ws-ra 17:15:57 MartinC has joined #ws-ra 17:16:12
  • li has joined #ws-ra 17:16:14 RESOLUTION: 8157 is resolved as proposed - fault defintion will be modified approriately for the enumeration 17:16:45 TOPIC: 8191 17:17:05 +Li 17:17:14 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8191 17:17:31 Wu has joined #ws-ra 17:22:17 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 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 has joined #ws-ra 17:24:34 Ram: previously XPath 1.0 can evaluate multiple paths dont use Put 17:26:56 RESOLUTION 8191 with comment no 5 in the issue description 17:27:51 TOPIC: 8180, 8299, 8302 17:28:07 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0190.html 17:28:59 -asoldano 17:30:48 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 has joined #ws-ra 17:32:55 dug: representation element becomes the complete representation - lloking at the element get response or it is different it is wst representation 17:33:20 q+ 17:33:40 ack asir 17:34:04 asir: I didnt see the conversation having benefits two different wrappers 17:34:34 gpilz: wst representation extend authors they need can use it if not required 17:34:54 +asoldano 17:35:20 Ram: I want to establish the wrapper should be consistent it should serve the purpose for all the operations 17:35:56 gpilz: it is the representaiton of the resource 17:36:09 Ram: can it is be a partial representation 17:36:46 Ram: people would start inventing their own wrappers 17:37:22 gpilz: most reuse the wst specific to wrappers 17:38:42 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 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 gpilz: wst:PutResponse can get representation element back - it is optional 17:40:20 gpilz: samething for create & creatersponse didnt change 17:42:18 gpilz: in case if there is no dialect - extension of base dialect & there is dialect it shouldnt be 17:42:54 Ram: wst:put second sentense it is fine - assume there are no dialiects working on extensions - just a clarification 17:43:04 gpilz: yes 17:43:41 Ram: If i dont use dialects/extensions can I pass instruction in this representation element 17:44:51 DaveS: put & create are different in this context 17:45:15 Ram: my observation the represntation wrapper should contain the full representation 17:45:32 dug: we need to have the word "full" 17:46:09 Ram: use a dialect then will not have an element at all wrapper 17:46:20 Ram: same applies to extension 17:52:51 -asoldano 17:55:45 -Li 18:00:42 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 gpilz: client doesnt draw the semantic conclusion 18:01:51 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 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 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 Bob: might not the representation in this case 18:04:45 DaveS: B is the same case 18:05:03 dug: easier to jump to the end what sentense which requires 18:05:14 dug: everybody understand this 18:05:28 dug: what sentense is required 18:06:23 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 Bob: all the 3 response will have same information 18:07:02 Bob: current spec - recieveinng A, recievingB & nothing returns the same 18:07:25 Ram: when there is noting client side the service didnt make any change 18:08:32 Bob: Some thing change the request or something different then asked 18:09:17 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 Bob: what is means it sends back b 18:09:33 Bob: is b really what it is 18:09:43 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 - +1.703.860.aaaa 18:09:50 Ram: Client needs a snapshot to work with 18:10:10 dug: I asked for something & posted 18:10:59 dug; is this what should be in spec 18:14:01 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 q? 18:14:23 q+ 18:15:23 +asoldano 18:15:54 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 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 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 q+ 18:19:08 q+ 18:19:14 ack bob 18:19:30 Ram: Using the concurrency argument - I need to know what is do scope at the particiular request 18:19:46 Bob: Processing for all the requests 18:20:35 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 Bob: I am sggesting far better than doing that 18:22:24 ack gil 18:22:27 ack dave 18:22:33 gpilz: know about the resource as what should do is get 18:22:39 q+ 18:22:45 ack gp 18:23:42 -asoldano 18:24:04 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 ack ram 18:24:21 Ram: Clarification send something than change the time stamp 18:24:28 DaveS: anything changes 18:24:46 gpilz: represenattion is a full representation 18:25:46 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 DaveS: many of the erros might havent happened 18:26:15 s/erros/errors 18:26:38 gpilz: specs says something about this 18:27:28 q+ 18:28:08 unless its transactional;) 18:28:43 ws-tx? 18:29:24 +1 to jeff - distributed systems 101 18:30:18 Ram: I am fine with gpilz proposal 18:30:37 Ram: are there any schema changes 18:30:55 dug; I will take care of it 18:31:55 -Tom_Rutt 18:32:13 RESOLUTION: resolved 8180, 8299, 8302 as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0190.html 18:36:30 q- 18:42:00 +Li 18:47:36 TOPIC: 8273 18:48:48 RESOLUTION: 8273 as defer 18:48:59 TOPIC: 8229 18:49:08 gpilz: I dont have a proposal for this 18:49:39 Asir: is this related to 8196 18:50:05 Bob: combine 8196 & 8229 18:50:15 gpilz: there might be different 18:50:39 s/there/they 18:51:27 gpilz: to use qualified names - request when evaluted resource would produce different results 18:51:34 Ashok: what is the problem 18:52:01 DaveS: mandate what we have full namespace - full qualified 18:52:12 +Tom_Rutt 18:54:04 gpilz: what is the first sentense means 18:54:39 q+ 18:56:12 ack tom 18:57:34 I like Yves' suggestion! 18:57:43 Tom_Rutt: *: means full namespace so this would be approriate 18:58:30 q+ 18:58:31 gpilz: as clinet I need to know that before consutructing 18:59:29 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 dug: last sentense we get what is required if that is ok then go for it 19:00:36 Bob: how do we fix the second sentense 19:01:00 gpilz: namespace bindling are significant for all the elments 19:01:06 s/elments/elements 19:01:15 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 Bob: the namespace is document in XPath - suggestion 19:01:47 q+ 19:02:13 ack tom 19:02:40 Tom_Rut: XPath has qualified when I am writing namespace prefix 19:03:06 DaveS: Putting some not qualified Tom said it is going to match default namespace I am happy with it 19:05:21 RESOLUTION: 8229 with removing the text in question 19:06:10 TOPIC:8306 19:06:35 Bob: there is no proposal for this 19:06:57 gpilz: I don;t understand it 19:07:11 Bob: any proposal to clarify 19:09:14 RESOLUTION: 8306 is deffered 19:09:55 TOPIC: 8185 19:10:28 gpilz: have we changes the modes siginficantly 19:10:41 dug: we havent decided yet 19:11:07 dug: I need to work with DaveS & bob on this 19:12:35 TOPIC: 8258 19:13:42 RESOLUTION: 8258 is closed as it is already addressed by other issue 19:15:35 q+ 19:19:37 TOPIC: 7728 19:20:10 Bob: this is proposal6 19:20:51 gpilz: goto section 7.2 19:21:33 q+ 19:23:14 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 has joined #ws-ra 19:23:52 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7728 19:25:30 q+ 19:26:18 ack asir 19:27:32 q+ 19:28:33 q- 19:28:53 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 ack gp 19:30:13 -MartinC 19:32:49 q+ 19:32:55 MartinC has joined #ws-ra 19:33:19 q+ 19:34:43 sorry we are in the weeds :-) 19:35:13 +MartinC 19:36:33 gpilz: works in the case consumer knows what the EPR refferes to anybody gives an EPR something can figure it out 19:36:47 asir: anybody is going to disagree 19:37:16 ack dave 19:37:21 q+ 19:37:44 zakim, who is noisy 19:37:44 I don't understand 'who is noisy', Bob 19:37:48 here is a suggested first sentence .. 19:37:50 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 zakim, who is making noise? 19:38:11 Bob, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: MartinC (46%) 19:38:40 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 q+ 19:39:45 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 ack tom 19:40:58 q+ 19:41:56 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 ack dug 19:42:29 dug: I think what you are basically say dont pull policy any message exchange with the EPR 19:42:34 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 Ashok: do you agree with it 19:42:50 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 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 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 http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/v1.3/os/ws-securitypolicy-1.3-spec-os.html#_SupportingTokens_Assertion 19:44:00 You would need to get the whole wsdl for such details, using Mex getWsdl 19:44:48 + +1.703.860.aabb 19:45:08 Vikas1 has joined #ws-ra 19:45:48 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 Policy attached to an EPR in this manner MUST be applicable to any message exchangesusing the endpoint referenced by that EPR. 19:46:56 q? 19:47:04 q+ 19:47:15 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 ack asir 19:48:25 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 Asir: we have to define the policy endpoint subject 19:54:20 ack tom 19:55:32 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0191.html 20:04:06 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0192.html 20:05:54 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 no, not quite yet, Martin 20:14:36 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 has joined #ws-ra 20:15:27 -MartinC 20:15:30 -Tom_Rutt 20:15:43 ressed until 1:15 20:16:15 - +1.703.860.aabb 20:19:29 -Li 20:19:54 -[Fujitsu] 20:19:55 WS_WSRA(F2F)11:00AM has ended 20:19:57 Attendees were [Fujitsu], +1.703.860.aaaa, asoldano, Tom_Rutt, MartinC, Li, +1.703.860.aabb 21:11:47 zakim, this will be WS_WSRA 21:11:47 ok, Bob; I see WS_WSRA(F2F)11:00AM scheduled to start 311 minutes ago 21:12:03 rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight 21:23:53 we are dialig back and will resume in a moment 21:24:12 WS_WSRA(F2F)11:00AM has now started 21:24:19 +[Fujitsu] 21:30:23 Topic: 6436 21:30:48 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0188.html 21:31:11 +Li 21:31:40 Vikas1 has joined #ws-ra 21:32:20 DaveS: It doesnt have creating state 21:32:31 DaveS: we have consumer & source 21:53:41 +MartinC 21:54:41 zakim, who is on the call 21:54:41 I don't understand 'who is on the call', MartinC 22:30:49 Sreed1 has joined #ws-ra 22:31:37 -Li 22:32:07 Sreed has joined #ws-ra 22:35:38 asir has joined #ws-ra 22:49:10 RESOLUTION: 6436 has documented & pending action on editor 22:49:23 TOPIC: 6435 22:50:01 Li's comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0189.html 22:50:18 s/has/as 22:52:04 Bob: empty cells not described by the spec 22:53:22 DaveS has joined #ws-ra 22:57:02 zakim, who is here 22:57:02 MartinC, you need to end that query with '?' 22:57:13 zakin, you are stupid 22:57:19 ? 22:57:39 q+ 22:58:25 -MartinC 22:58:33 q- 22:58:35 MartinC has left #ws-ra 23:32:39 this is an appendix 23:34:21 RESOLUTION: 6435 as documented & pending action on editor 23:39:50 lhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/att-0193/wsfrag-8196.zip 23:39:59 TOPIC: 8196 23:40:15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/att-0193/wsfrag-8196.zip 23:40:33 dug: scroll down section-6 & one paragraph changed 23:44:16 Bob: Any objection for accepting the proposal 23:47:47 RESOLUTION: close 8196 & apply the resolution of frag as proposed 23:51:08 Bob: next meeting Feb 9th - All the remaining proposals to be discused & 2119, any questions 23:58:08 Bob: 2//10 - snapshot , 2/16 - incorporate issues & last call - vote 23:59:00 Bob: 2/23 - published 23:59:37 Bob: 3/2 - Open "x" last call issues 00:05:45 RESOLUTION: working draft of WS - Event descriptor specification 00:11:58 thank you, Fujitsu for hosting 00:12:34 rrsagent, generate minutes 00:12:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/28-ws-ra-minutes.html Bob 00:17:37 -[Fujitsu] 00:17:38 WS_WSRA(F2F)11:00AM has ended 00:17:40 Attendees were [Fujitsu], Li, MartinC 00:32:01 gpilz has left #ws-ra