See also: IRC log
<TomasV> amit, talk to you later
<scribe> scribe: ericP
RESOLUTION: approve both sets of minutes [http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060830] and [http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060912]
<scribe> ACTION: EricP to add text gravy to his annotated Amazon WSDL and put it in Examples document [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060919#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: EricP to get feedback from XMLCore about attrExtensions element [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060919#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: JacekK to put appropriate WG members in bad standing, and not reference them in the acknowledgements [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060919#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: JacekK to respond to Pierre Chatel about our resolution to his issues [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060919#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: EricP to investigate relation of SAWSDL to WS-MEX [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060919#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: JacekK to suggest rewording for first paragraph of section 2.2 [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060919#action06]
<scribe> ACTION: JacekK to draft a paragraph about multiple schema mappings being alternatives (in 2.2) [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060919#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: JacekK to suggest in email to Rama, Joel and Holger (cc mailing list) to remove appendix B from spec, move to usage guide [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060919#action08]
<scribe> ACTION: Carlos to improve Laurent's proposed terminology according to our discussion and send to mailing list [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060919#action09]
JacekK: next f2f in GA. logistics page pending
Amit: how many should I plan for?
JacekK: 15 will leave room for observers
... we can set the registration timout for however much advance notice you need
Amit: for $25/person, I can outsource everything
ericP: does anyone have an administrative problem paying $25?
laura: could be a problem, but $25 is pretty small
JacekK: it seems that it would be $50 for both days, never seen a f2f where participants had to pay
... could Amit see if the lab budget cover the approx $600?
- Proposal from Laurent http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-semann/2006Sep/0006
- Also comments from Laura http://www.w3.org/mid/9E577E61D0108D4F8CD482029B613F5C010A9425@PTPEVS108BA020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it
laurenth: the goal was to break the circularity
... am happy with what Carlos proposed
... defn of semantics seems too general -- proposed text to constrain it to SAWSDL
... "relationships" should be covered by the term "concepts"
... only 5 occurances of "semantics" in the text. propose: "semantics in this specification refers to set of concepts ..."
Amit: may be good to qualify that it is "interpreted in the context of the conceptual model"
... [current text] is good
JacekK: current proposal is in laurenth's email includes quoted defns from Carlos's mail plus laurenth's defn for semantics
<JacekK> http://www.w3.org/mid/450F9680.2040308@gmail.com
RESOLUTION: accept terminology suggestions proposed in laurenth's mail (above)
Joel: incorporated comments -- spec is more readable now
... all that remains are subitems in agenda 6, removal of bad standing members, +ref to member submission
... holger moved appendix B to examples document. can restore if needed
JacekK: we have had time to review
RESOLUTION: accept amendments to section 2.2 listed in agenda
Joel: +1
RESOLUTION: Moving appendix B out of main spec per agendum
JacekK: use case editors may choose to adopt this text
<JacekK> http://www.w3.org/mid/7.0.1.0.0.20060912164706.07620f48@mitre.org
PROPOSED: UDDI example IRI suggestion per agendum
Joel: would prefer to use 2002 URI
... would like to switch example to UDDI 3 -- confident doing that
JacekK: both good suggestions
RESOLUTION: the editor will update the UDDI-specific URIs
Joel: shall I remove the members listed as being in bad standing
... how do I handle John Miller?
JacekK: I will send you the text
poll: publish as LC?
Joel: I approve
Laura: I approve
laurenth: +1
holger: +1
ericP: +1
Amit: +1
TomasV: +1
RESOLUTION: all members present agree we will publish Last Call
JacekK: expect to pub by end of week. possible ericP?
ericP: sure. easy one to publish
JacekK: will send transition request
JacekK: concerns raised about proper attribution
... we can 1) withdraw, 2) change the authors, 3) change the title to "Status of SAWSDL" and make it clear that it is a product of the authors and not the WG
... prefer 3
Amit: if it's SAWSDL as a whole, should reflect WG authors. any other doc can have it's own authors.
... happy with JacekK's proposal (option 3)
RESOLUTION: change the title to "Status of SAWSDL" and make it clear that it is a product of the authors and not the WG
next meeting: 26 Sept