IRC log of ws-ra on 2011-02-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:24:11 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
20:24:11 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/02/01-ws-ra-irc
20:24:13 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs public
20:24:13 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #ws-ra
20:24:15 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be WSRA
20:24:15 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot, I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM already started
20:24:16 [trackbot]: Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
20:24:16 [trackbot]: Date: 01 February 2011
20:27:07 [gpilz]: gpilz has joined #ws-ra
20:27:49 [Zakim]: +Bob_Freund
20:28:01 [Zakim]: +Gilbert_Pilz
20:28:29 [dug]: dug has joined #ws-ra
20:28:30 [li]: li has joined #ws-ra
20:28:48 [Dave]: scribenick:dave
20:29:16 [Zakim]: + +1.908.696.aaaa
20:29:18 [Zakim]: +Doug_Davis
20:29:35 [li]: zakim, aaaa is li
20:29:35 [Zakim]: +li; got it
20:30:02 [Ram]: Ram has joined #ws-ra
20:30:15 [asoldano]: asoldano has joined #ws-ra
20:30:28 [Zakim]: +Yves
20:30:50 [Zakim]: +asoldano
20:31:55 [Zakim]: +Tom_Rutt
20:32:07 [gpilz]: ~30F here - but I'm at 7,500 feet
20:32:08 [Ashok]: Ashok has joined #ws-ra
20:32:31 [Zakim]: +[Microsoft]
20:33:10 [Zakim]: +Ashok_Malhotra
20:33:27 [Tom_Rutt]: Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
20:33:55 [Dave]: Topic: Agenda
20:34:23 [dug]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2011Feb/0000.html
20:35:41 [Dave]: Agenda accepted.
20:35:42 [Ram]: q+
20:36:17 [BobF]: ack ram
20:36:39 [Dave]: Ram: Still working on some of the issues still, but some are ok.
20:37:02 [Dave]: Bob: Which ones are resolvable?
20:37:27 [Dave]: We will do this as we come to them.
20:37:40 [Dave]: The minutes are accepted:
20:37:53 [Dave]: Topic: F2F Logistics
20:38:23 [Dave]: Gil was to look for a dinner spot.
20:38:49 [Dave]: No changes to the table of implementations
20:39:00 [Dave]: Topic: New Issues.
20:39:04 [dug]: +q
20:39:27 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11874
20:39:38 [Dave]: 11874: Accepted as a new issue.
20:40:06 [Dave]: Recolved: Issue 11874 as proposed.
20:40:21 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11882
20:40:21 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11882
20:40:24 [dug]: -q
20:40:31 [dug]: q+
20:41:09 [Dave]: Accepted as a new issue.
20:41:11 [BobF]: ack dug
20:41:24 [Dave]: Proposal to fix in the obvious way.
20:41:35 [Dave]: Resolved as proposed.
20:41:51 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11894
20:41:52 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11894
20:42:58 [Dave]: Issue accepted as a new issue.
20:43:14 [Dave]: People need time on this one.
20:43:23 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11899
20:43:27 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11899
20:43:36 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=948
20:44:58 [Dave]: Accepted as new issue.
20:45:29 [Dave]: Resolved: As proposed.
20:45:39 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11928
20:45:47 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11928
20:46:58 [Dave]: Bob: Yves will this be fixed by the publication process.
20:47:25 [Dave]: Yves: I will take care of it.
20:47:33 [Dave]: Resolved as proposed.
20:47:45 [Dave]: ACTION: Yves to fix as recommended.
20:47:45 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-174 - Fix as recommended. [on Yves Lafon - due 2011-02-08].
20:47:56 [gpilz]: q+
20:49:04 [gpilz]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11850
20:49:40 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11850
20:50:04 [Dave]: Gil this has no semantic change. It is just clarification
20:50:23 [dug]: +1 - its non-normative text that clarifies
20:50:57 [Dave]: Resolved: as proposed.
20:51:09 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11790
20:51:10 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11790
20:51:50 [Dave]: Dug: Is a qname a proble for the dialogue type.
20:52:23 [dug]: preferred solution: <mex:Dialect Type="{nsURI}localPart" ...
20:52:24 [Dave]: Dug: Some parsers don't hold onto name spaces for qnames longenough.
20:53:15 [Tom_Rutt]: q+
20:53:31 [Dave]: Dug: It looks like we might be stuck with existing parses.
20:53:39 [BobF]: ack tom
20:53:51 [gpilz]: q?
20:53:54 [gpilz]: q+
20:53:57 [gpilz]: q-
20:53:59 [gpilz]: q+
20:54:06 [Dave]: Tom: Do you mean schema changes?
20:54:24 [Dave]: Dug: Yes, but also definitions of what goes on the wire.
20:54:25 [BobF]: ack gp
20:55:36 [dug]: +q
20:55:47 [BobF]: ack dug
20:55:56 [Dave]: Dave: Says this approach works.
20:56:17 [Tom_Rutt]: q+
20:56:29 [BobF]: Note that dateTime is at risk
20:56:32 [Dave]: Dug: We could support both. Make it a string and test for the first character "{"
20:56:37 [gpilz]: q+
20:56:46 [BobF]: ack tom
20:57:20 [Dave]: Tom: Described how XML processors work, e.g. they need to do some context setting.
20:58:09 [dug]: its an attribute
20:58:10 [Dave]: Tom: In the XPath case there was no real context present. In the case we need to force it.
20:58:32 [Dave]: Tom: I don't like the both ways options.
20:58:40 [BobF]: ack gp
20:59:09 [Dave]: Gil: I like the "{" approach - because I am lazy.
20:59:27 [Dave]: Gil: Both is bad.
20:59:48 [dug]: +q
20:59:54 [dug]: <mex:Dialect Type="{nsURI}localPart"
20:59:57 [BobF]: ack dug
21:00:24 [Dave]: BoB; Can we drop both?
21:00:55 [Dave]: Ram: I don't know yet what the final picture is.
21:01:18 [Dave]: Ram: Directionally, the above makes sense, but I need to talk.
21:01:31 [asoldano]: I'm fine with single way
21:01:46 [gpilz]: q+
21:01:55 [Dave]: Bob: It sounds like a single way is the prefered approach.
21:02:04 [Tom_Rutt]: q+
21:02:12 [Dave]: Bob: Is there a common approach?
21:02:26 [Dave]: Gil: The "{" approach is reasonable common.
21:02:39 [Dave]: Dave: I has seen it too.
21:02:42 [BobF]: ack gp
21:02:45 [dug]: I'm pretty sure { isn't a valid char in a NS
21:03:05 [Dave]: Gil: Is it too much work to work out the type?
21:03:08 [asoldano]: that's a common way of doing a to-string conversion of NS
21:03:23 [BobF]: ack tom
21:03:24 [Dave]: Dug: I was only going to put it in the string.
21:03:38 [Dave]: Tom: This is an application level issue.
21:03:42 [gpilz]: q+
21:04:17 [BobF]: ack next
21:04:20 [Dave]: Tom: We define it the way we want.
21:04:40 [Ashok]: q+
21:04:50 [Dave]: Gil: Can we refine a string to enforse the format?
21:05:18 [BobF]: ack next
21:05:39 [Dave]: Ashok: You can do this with a pattern.
21:05:46 [dug]: q+
21:06:01 [BobF]: ack next
21:06:08 [Dave]: Ashok: E.g. { + characters + } + charcaters.
21:06:23 [Dave]: Ashok: I can help.
21:07:00 [Dave]: Dug: This doesn't help much, since schema validation is usually off.
21:07:19 [Dave]: Gil: With schema, the text is easier.
21:07:42 [dug]: Ashok if you can send me the xsd I'll make a more formal proposal
21:07:54 [gpilz]: my proposal for creating a simple type that defines "{namespace URI}local part" is about using schema as a spec documentation tool
21:08:28 [gpilz]: it's not so much about schema validation - it's just that a human reader can look at the schema and know exactly what is required
21:08:33 [Dave]: Resolution: The "{" approach looks like the direction. Please raise concerns ASAP.
21:08:44 [Ashok]: I need to do a bit of work to figure out how to write the pattern
21:09:22 [Dave]: Action: ashok will help Dug do this in schema.
21:09:23 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-175 - Will help Dug do this in schema. [on Ashok Malhotra - due 2011-02-08].
21:10:03 [Dave]: Issue 11865 needs a proposal
21:10:13 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11766
21:10:14 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11766
21:10:15 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=949
21:11:20 [Dave]: Dug: The TX-Create was strange wrt empty representations. It seemed to imply support for empty was required.
21:11:53 [Dave]: Dug: The text in Put looked better, so the proposal ti to apply this text to Create.
21:13:01 [Dave]: Dug: Dug: There were some other text changes as well, including support for a fault.
21:13:25 [Dave]: Dug: In Put there was a minor alignment change included.
21:13:57 [gpilz]: q+
21:14:10 [Dave]: Ram: This looks like the right directin.
21:14:11 [BobF]: ack gp
21:14:22 [Dave]: Gil: It looks OK, but for a nit.
21:15:01 [Dave]: Gil: The reference to schema validation isn't really needed.
21:15:51 [Dave]: Dug: I just want them consitent.
21:16:26 [Dave]: Tom: Drop the word Schema.
21:16:37 [BobF]: ack yve
21:16:51 [Dave]: Yves: Maybe we just Put.
21:17:11 [Dave]: Dug: It's not the semantics, but the text.
21:17:13 [gpilz]: If an implementation that validates the presented representation detects that the presented representation is invalid
21:17:44 [Dave]: Dug: Looks OK.
21:18:01 [gpilz]: If an implementation that validates the presented representation detects that that representation is invalid . . .
21:18:04 [Dave]: Gil: There just might be other ways to do this.
21:18:20 [Ram]: q+
21:18:27 [Dave]: Dug: I can update the propose.
21:18:37 [BobF]: ack ram
21:19:04 [Dave]: Ram: Can empty still happen?
21:19:28 [Dave]: Dug: Yes, but only if the schema supports it.
21:20:16 [Dave]: Gil: So only some resources can do empty, but it is their choice.
21:20:32 [Tom_Rutt]: q+
21:20:45 [Dave]: Yves: The empty constructor was there to suppot later put to the resource
21:20:53 [Dave]: Gil: There are other use cases.
21:21:12 [dug]: q+
21:21:16 [BobF]: ack tom
21:21:26 [Dave]: Gil: The object defines what emapy constructure means.
21:21:45 [Dave]: Tom: What does empty constriuctor mean?
21:22:01 [Dave]: Gil: Various shades of nothingness.
21:22:33 [Dave]: Gil: Either use default value, or actuallyempty.
21:23:11 [Dave]: Gil: If it can't do it, fault (emptyness not allowed).
21:23:42 [Dave]: Tom: How does the client know?
21:23:50 [Dave]: Gil: It's out of band.
21:24:05 [dug]: q+
21:24:13 [Dave]: Bob: There is some work to do on this.
21:24:29 [BobF]: ack dug
21:24:36 [Dave]: Dug: I can update based on this discussion.
21:25:21 [Dave]: Resolved: This is the right direction, e.g. do the right thing or fault.
21:25:32 [Dave]: Action: Dug to revise the proposal.
21:25:32 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-176 - Revise the proposal. [on Doug Davis - due 2011-02-08].
21:25:54 [Dave]: Bob: Can we make progress of these others?
21:26:24 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11698
21:26:26 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11698
21:26:43 [Dave]: Dug: This is editorial.
21:27:19 [Dave]: Dub: The wording is not clear. there are other examples in the specs that are already clearer in similar cases.
21:27:26 [Dave]: Ram: Need more time.
21:28:59 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11703
21:29:09 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11703
21:29:30 [gpilz]: q+
21:29:41 [Dave]: Dug: This is just editorial, using the text from enumeration.
21:29:50 [BobF]: ack gp
21:30:40 [Dave]: Gil: You support filter, you supprt teh dialect I am using. Is this what I get back?
21:30:44 [Dave]: Dug: Yes.
21:32:10 [Dave]: Ram: there is a punction problem in the early part of the spec.
21:32:41 [Dave]: Dug: I can do a comma, but it's a different spec.
21:32:53 [Dave]: Bob: Just leave it.
21:33:16 [Dave]: Resolved: Issue as proposed.
21:33:51 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11697
21:34:05 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11697
21:34:13 [Dave]: Dug: Couldn't find a generic fault.
21:34:52 [Dave]: Dig: I lean to CWNA.
21:35:37 [Dave]: There was a slight drift into fantacy land.
21:35:50 [Dave]: Ram: Isn't there a fault for this.
21:36:00 [Dave]: Bob: Please find one.
21:36:35 [Dave]: Bob: this appears to be outside of the protocol.
21:36:49 [Dave]: Resolved: Close with no action.
21:36:50 [dug]: q+
21:37:01 [BobF]: ack dug
21:37:09 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11723
21:37:09 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11723
21:37:29 [Dave]: Dug: This is the same as above. Close with no action.
21:37:58 [dug]: q+
21:37:58 [Dave]: Resolved: Close with no action.
21:38:27 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11776
21:38:42 [Dave]: Bob: Proposal close with no action.
21:38:51 [Dave]: Bob: Its a breaking change.
21:39:38 [Tom_Rutt]: q+
21:39:38 [Dave]: Dug: The semantic stays the same, but the name changes.
21:39:50 [BobF]: ack dug
21:39:53 [BobF]: ack tom
21:40:15 [Dave]: Tom: In SCA this did happen. If there is other real important stuff, we will fix this too.
21:40:28 [Zakim]: -Tom_Rutt
21:40:30 [dug]: q+
21:40:34 [gpilz]: q+
21:40:47 [BobF]: ack dug
21:41:10 [Zakim]: +Tom_Rutt
21:41:12 [BobF]: ack gp
21:41:14 [Dave]: Dug: There is no real implementation history to protect.
21:41:46 [Dave]: Gil: The proposal isn't clear. What is changing, the qname?
21:42:17 [Dave]: Dig: The text is OK, but on the wire we send maxelements, but get back elements.
21:43:08 [Dave]: Bob: Defer if we do get breaking changes.
21:43:12 [Dave]: +1
21:43:43 [Dave]: Resolved: Defer this to later if there is another breaking proposal (that matters).
21:44:49 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11723
21:44:56 [Dave]: Already closed.
21:45:06 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11724
21:45:26 [Dave]: Ram: Needs more time.
21:45:35 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11725
21:45:51 [Dave]: Dug: Close with no action.
21:46:05 [Dave]: Resolved: Close with no action.
21:46:19 [Dave]: Topic: Issue 11772
21:46:37 [Dave]: Dug: Straight forwad.
21:47:19 [Dave]: Ram: will look into this.
21:47:30 [dug]: q+
21:47:36 [Dave]: Bob: Well done on the issues.
21:47:50 [Dave]: Topic: Testing Scenario
21:47:55 [BobF]: ack dug
21:48:21 [Dave]: Dug: The NS for the specs and the scenarion are different
21:48:36 [Dave]: Dug: Let the scenarion stay in the editor space.
21:48:55 [Dave]: Bob: Where would they stay long term?
21:49:14 [Dave]: Yves: They would stay in the group's namespace.
21:50:00 [Dave]: Bob: Put them in the scenarios directory within the wg.
21:50:07 [dug]: now: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/scenario
21:50:55 [dug]: bob: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/test
21:51:04 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/test/scenario.html
21:51:14 [dug]: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/test/scenario/Animal.xsd
21:52:08 [Dave]: Bob: Yves is this OK?
21:52:12 [Dave]: Yves: Yes.
21:52:57 [Dave]: Dug: The scenario docs will start differently than teh other specs.
21:53:05 [Dave]: Gil: Thsi is oK.
21:53:06 [Yves]: if you used an entity for the ns, then it's easy to rebuild and adjust
21:53:20 [dug]: well, I need to move it in cvs too
21:53:23 [Dave]: Resolved: As proposed.
21:54:11 [Dave]: Nothing more on the scenarions.
21:54:11 [li]: q+
21:54:27 [BobF]: ack li
21:54:32 [Dave]: Li: When will these be stable?
21:54:39 [dug]: 12:01pm the first day of the f2f
21:54:59 [Dave]: Dug: No we still have some more work on eventing.
21:55:35 [Dave]: Dug: What is there is pretty stable, But we may add more feature tests.
21:56:10 [Dave]: Bob: You can write code now.
21:56:28 [Dave]: Li: Is there an actual freeze time.
21:56:45 [Dave]: Bob: Can we freeze until the F2F.
21:56:54 [Dave]: Bob: it will change at the F2F.
21:57:20 [Dave]: bob: Is a week OK?
21:57:57 [Ram]: q+
21:58:06 [Dave]: Bob: This always happens.
21:58:27 [dug]: q+
21:59:01 [Dave]: Bob: Some freeze is needed, but will never be stable once we get to the F2F.
21:59:27 [Dave]: Bob: We still need to make as few changes as possible as wel approach the F2F.
21:59:30 [gpilz]: q+
21:59:32 [Dave]: Ram: Agrees.
21:59:36 [BobF]: ack ram
22:00:10 [Dave]: Ram: Wants a freze date if possible.
22:00:32 [BobF]: ack dug
22:01:27 [Dave]: Dug: I understand. I hope people are coding to the spec and not the scenario document. This is to test the spec, not the scenarion.
22:01:30 [BobF]: Time gentlemen
22:02:13 [Dave]: Bob: We will test the spec. and the meeting has ended.
22:02:47 [Dave]: Bob: But we will try to be as stable as we can.
22:02:51 [dug]: @yves - I hope I said "NOT code for the test"
22:03:24 [Yves]: the second time, yes, not the first time :) (but it's late here)
22:03:44 [Zakim]: -li
22:03:44 [asoldano]: bye
22:03:45 [Zakim]: -Gilbert_Pilz
22:03:46 [Zakim]: -??P6
22:03:47 [Zakim]: -Yves
22:03:47 [Zakim]: -[Microsoft]
22:03:47 [Zakim]: -Doug_Davis
22:03:48 [Zakim]: -Bob_Freund
22:03:49 [Zakim]: -asoldano
22:03:51 [Zakim]: -Tom_Rutt
22:03:53 [BobF]: rrsagent, generate minutes
22:03:53 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/02/01-ws-ra-minutes.html BobF
22:08:50 [Zakim]: disconnecting the lone participant, Ashok_Malhotra, in WS_WSRA()3:30PM
22:08:51 [Zakim]: WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
22:08:55 [Zakim]: Attendees were Bob_Freund, Gilbert_Pilz, +1.908.696.aaaa, Doug_Davis, li, Yves, asoldano, Tom_Rutt, [Microsoft], Ashok_Malhotra
22:17:03 [gpilz]: gpilz has left #ws-ra