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
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]
20:28:01 [Zakim]
20:28:29 [dug]
dug has joined #ws-ra
20:28:30 [li]
li has joined #ws-ra
20:28:48 [Dave]
20:29:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.908.696.aaaa
20:29:18 [Zakim]
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]
20:30:50 [Zakim]
20:31:55 [Zakim]
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]
20:33:10 [Zakim]
20:33:27 [Tom_Rutt]
Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
20:33:55 [Dave]
Topic: Agenda
20:34:23 [dug]
20:35:41 [Dave]
Agenda accepted.
20:35:42 [Ram]
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]
20:39:27 [dug]
20:39:38 [Dave]
11874: Accepted as a new issue.
20:40:06 [Dave]
Recolved: Issue 11874 as proposed.
20:40:21 [dug]
20:40:21 [Dave]
Topic: Issue 11882
20:40:24 [dug]
20:40:31 [dug]
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]
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]
20:43:36 [dug]
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]
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]
20:49:04 [gpilz]
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]
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]
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]
20:53:54 [gpilz]
20:53:57 [gpilz]
20:53:59 [gpilz]
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]
20:55:47 [BobF]
ack dug
20:55:56 [Dave]
Dave: Says this approach works.
20:56:17 [Tom_Rutt]
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]
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]
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]
21:01:55 [Dave]
Bob: It sounds like a single way is the prefered approach.
21:02:04 [Tom_Rutt]
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]
21:04:17 [BobF]
ack next
21:04:20 [Dave]
Tom: We define it the way we want.
21:04:40 [Ashok]
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]
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]
21:10:15 [dug]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
21:29:30 [gpilz]
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]
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]
21:37:01 [BobF]
ack dug
21:37:09 [dug]
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]
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]
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]
21:40:30 [dug]
21:40:34 [gpilz]
21:40:47 [BobF]
ack dug
21:41:10 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
21:50:55 [dug]
21:51:04 [dug]
21:51:14 [dug]
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]
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]
21:58:06 [Dave]
Bob: This always happens.
21:58:27 [dug]
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]
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]
22:03:44 [asoldano]
22:03:45 [Zakim]
22:03:46 [Zakim]
22:03:47 [Zakim]
22:03:47 [Zakim]
22:03:47 [Zakim]
22:03:48 [Zakim]
22:03:49 [Zakim]
22:03:51 [Zakim]
22:03:53 [BobF]
rrsagent, generate minutes
22:03:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate 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