XMLP WG Telcon Minutes 19 Nov 2003

Based on IRC log

1. Roll
Present 12/9
BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
Canon, Herve Ruellan
IBM, David Fallside
IBM, John Ibbotson
IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
IONA Technologies, Seumas Soltysik
Nokia, Michael Mahan (scribe)
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley
Systinet (IDOOX), Jacek Kopecky

BEA Systems, David Orchard
Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
IONA Technologies, Mike Greenberg
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
Systinet (IDOOX), Miroslav Simek

DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Mario Jeckle
Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin
SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing
W3C, Yves Lafon
W3C, Carine Bournez

DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Andreas Riegg
Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer

2. Agenda review

3. Agenda - approval of minutes 
<scribe> minutes approved without objection

4. Action Items
<scribe> first two remain pending
<scribe> 3rd - pending
<scribe> 4th - mnot - done
<scribe> 5th - anish - done
<scribe> 6th - mnot - w3c/ietf lia - done
<scribe> 7th - marc - done
<scribe> 8th - f2f agenda - done

5. Status Reports & Misc
<scribe> Media type registrations
<scribe> DF summary: mnot created draft text
<scribe> seek additional mediatypes (MTs) ... list other alternatives
<scribe> noah - had friendly amendments
<scribe> Noah: the response to the amendments is unclear
<scribe> mnot: generally no major problems on the response
<scribe> davidF - if we merge noah's response with your text - is that
<scribe> mnot - noah is right that new MT is appropriate for this
<scribe> mnot - whether to ping the liaison or not is a new query
<scribe> noah: the tone of the note is that we thing a new MT is necessary
for mtom
<scribe> some of the issues in the text may be confusing - the content
media type, etc...
<scribe> noah: how does this relate to miffy?
<scribe> mnot: there are issues with MT and miffy
<scribe> davidF: so should we ping the liaison with our text, or is it
<scribe> davidF: so if we merge the text - will it help our cause?
<scribe> mnot: yes modulo some items which would be confusing for them
<scribe> davidF: are there additional comments from other members (beside
mnot and noah)? .... none
<scribe> davidF: mnot and noah volunteered to generate a revision

<davidF> ACTION: MarkN and Noah to revise IETF/W3C liason text, due by CoB
21 Nov, for consideration at f2f

<scribe> Next item: xmlp / svg collaboration
<scribe> davidF: not much to report ... Robin B. gives tacit support for
SVG support for mtom??
<scribe> question whether Robin Berjon is member of SVG WG

<davidF> ACTION: DavidF to alert SVG to MIFFY, seek f/back by f2f

<scribe> Next AI - XMLP/WSD TF
<scribe> anish: sent message -- no response yet from WSD

6. F2F Meeting
<scribe> as of yesterday, 10 people registered
<scribe> if you cannot attend - please send regrets
<scribe> davidF: no telecon next week
<scribe> davidF: draft agenda is posted
<scribe> mnot - there will be ethernet connectivity
<scribe> mnot - no wireless :(
<scribe> davidF, mnot - group dinner will be decided on the day 
<scribe> mnot - 15th floor
<scribe> davidF: dialin is probable, but not certain

<davidF> ACTION: Chair to ensure telcon access to f2f mtg

<scribe> davidF: LC comments - intention was not to shortcircuit process
but to focus mindset on LC deadline
<scribe> davidF: miffy is a result of this focusing on the mtom deliverable
<scribe> davidf: miffy seems to be getting positive feedback, and LC is in
sight, so lets generate a list of the items needed to be completed
<scribe> davidF: note that the list isn't static
<scribe> davidF: this list serves the project management needs
<scribe> marc: this satisfies my concerns
<scribe> davidF: not all items will be completed at the f2f
<scribe> davidF: evaluate miffy for go/nogo decision is in scope for f2f
<scribe> davidF: agenda item: evaluate miffy ... we can step through doc
and identify items a thru z
<scribe> davidF: similarly with mtom
<scribe> davidF: also go through issues list
<scribe> davidF: 441, 442, 443 clutch of issues
<scribe> davidF: docs part of our LC package:
<scribe> Attachment Feature document - written before PASWA and MIFFY
<scribe> davidF: need to think more about this AF doc
<scribe> davidF: is the Requirment and Use Case document complete?
<scribe> davidF: do we need a separate primer for mtom/miffy or rider to
soap primer?
<scribe> davidF: first consider the applicability of primer text and then
the home
<scribe> davidF: review draft LC schedule
<scribe> davidF: list of SOAP 1.2 errata - we should have resolutions to
<scribe> noah: is there not an issue regarding use of the XQuery Data Model
in mtom?
<scribe> noah: a handful of members should verify the XQDM details 
<scribe> noah: the XQDM may make claims that are not fully closed
<scribe> noah: this work item will take some pre-work by participating DM

<davidF> ACTION: noah to send XQDM sanity check issue to xmlp-comment

<scribe> marc: the miffy reformualation refactors mtom
<scribe> marc: a work item should occur to see if mtom will be refactored
given miffy
<scribe> davidF: yes - this evaluation should occur at the f2f, but the
timing will be difficult
<scribe> davidF: generate detailed list of things to change in each document
rather than new docs themselves 
<scribe> davidF: can the editors of mtom / miffy refactor the docs in time
for the f2f?
<scribe> mnot - yes
<scribe> noah: some things are best expressed in mtom, yet reworded in miffy
<scribe> mnot & noah: hashing out the possible mechanisms to refactor
these docs

<davidF> ACTION: markN to identify MTOM text to be included in MIFFY and/or
incorp that text into a revised version of MIFFY, due Nov 25

<scribe> davidF: how about mtom edits for the f2f?
<scribe> noah: there are other entanglements (Rep header), so a new mtom
version will be difficult to have before f2f
<scribe> noah: the interface between mtom and miffy will be very tight -
not just a reference
<scribe> davidF: can herve generate mtom text to relate the 2 specs? 
<scribe> herve: yes
<scribe> noah: clarification ... has the WG decided to go in the miffy direction?
<scribe> davidF: this is technically still open though the WG seems positive

<davidF> ACTION: Herve to generate MTOM text referencing MIFFY, due CoB
(CET) Tuesday Nov 25

<scribe> noah: query is to clarify editorial and potentially rollback activities
<scribe> marc: is primer on the agenda f2f?
<scribe> davidF: yes
<scribe> davidF: in summary: 
<scribe> davidF: revised versions of mtom and miffy
<scribe> davidF: we will evaluate these new versions
<scribe> davidF: evaluation will likely generate issues and comments
<scribe> davidF: we will deal with existing issues
<scribe> davidF: the DM issue in mtom and miffy
<scribe> davidF: 444 - XQuery in DM
<scribe> davidF: what to do with AF given mtom/miffy
<scribe> davidF: usecases and requirements
<scribe> davidF: UC & Req may be 'as-is'
<scribe> davidF: primer issue
<scribe> davidF: errata
<scribe> davidF: administrivia for LC
<scribe> davidF: there will be time limits on the issues coming out of the f2f
<scribe> davidF: will make some small changes to the f2f agenda
<scribe> davidF: it seems that generally the f2f agenda is OK

<scribe> davidF: skipping agenda item 7 to ensure we complete agenda item 8

8. SOAP 1.2 Rec Errata
<scribe> davidF: issues resolution should conform to a process
<herve> The reference is:
<scribe> davidF: pls read the process document for details on how to
resolve these issues
<davidF> list of SOAP 1.2 errata issue assignments:
<davidF> 7 anish
<davidF> 8 anish
<davidF> 9 marc
<davidF> 10 herve
<davidF> 11 markN
<davidF> 12 marc
<davidF> 13 david
<davidF> 14 john
<davidF> 15 mikeM (scribe)
<davidF> 16 jacek
<davidF> .... end of list
* JacekK gudge: re 16 - does adding  type='xs:QName'  really cover the intention? 8-)
* Gudge Jacek, not sure, need to look into it
* JacekK will propose that for 16, gudge may review it, the mail should cover it
all 8-)

7. Attachments
<scribe> davidF: general comments on miffy...
<scribe> davidF: people are generally happy with it technically
<scribe> mnot: the name is intended to be throw away
<scribe> noah: same loose ends as with mtom
<scribe> noah: miffy uri's in the xbin:include should be self contained
<scribe> noah: there should be some use cases which tease out both options
<scribe> marc: how uri's get 'absolutized' in the package
<scribe> mnot: we could limit ref uris to cid uri's
<scribe> marc: +1 (I think)
<scribe> davidF: error behavior debated
<scribe> noah: we are documenting to the level of raising the exception
but not further into the taxonomy of error types
<scribe> davidF: please date the next version of miffy 
<scribe> mnot: yes
<scribe> noah: do we say anything about the base uri of a miffy document?
<scribe> noah: also, should we put representation headers in the miffy spec
<scribe> marc: the representation capability could be applied to miffy
<scribe> group: representation headers apply only to SOAP, or more generally

<scribe> adjourn

<RRSAgent> I see 6 open action items:
<RRSAgent> ACTION: MarkN and Noah to revise IETF/W3C liason text, due by
CoB 21 Nov, for consideration at f2f [1]
<RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/19-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-27-13
<RRSAgent> ACTION: DavidF to alert SVG to MIFFY, seek f/back by f2f [2]
<RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/19-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-30-12
<RRSAgent> ACTION: Chair to ensure telcon access to f2f mtg [3]
<RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/19-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-36-12
<RRSAgent> ACTION: noah to send XQDM sanity check issue to xmlp-comment [4]
<RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/19-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-52-36
<RRSAgent> ACTION: markN to identify MTOM text to be included in MIFFY and/or
incorp that text into a revised version of MIFFY, due Nov 25 [5]
<RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/19-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-59-18
<RRSAgent> ACTION: Herve to generate MTOM text referencing MIFFY, due CoB
(CET) Tuesday Nov 25 [6]
<RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/19-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-07-19