See also: IRC log
<JacekK> last telcon minutes: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070116
the last telcon minutes approved
<scribe> ACTION: Eric to upgrade the SPDL page for SAWSDL readers and then work things out with the Usage Guide [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070123#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: JohnM to start putting together a test suite - set of WSDL files showing the spec features [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070123#action02]
Jacek: test suite - Ajith set up a site with test files
... http://cs.uga.edu/~ranabahu/sa-wsdl/
<JacekK> ACTION: JacekK to move the test suite to the W3C site [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070123#action03]
Jacek, meeting with director was successful, we can move on to CR
Jacek, we were requested to have shorter namespace name
<carlos> +1 to first form
Jacek: preference would be the first form of namespace: http://www.w3.org/2007/01/sawsdl#
... change the namespace in our spec from the long one (currently) to the new one
... editors can update the spec and usage guide
... when we get to CR, group can provide a draft of press release that W3c would make public
... resolution of policy comments are fine, Joel to reply to policy group
Jacek: single feature WSDL files are good for specific testing
Jacek: usage guide contains section 2.7 with condition annotations
Rama: reference should be made to concrete xml based SWRL syntax
Jacek: is current examples normative SWRL syntax?
Rama: yes
Jacek: I like the syntax as it is, moving this to xml based syntax will make it less readable
Rama: we can use the syntax as it is but we can include reference to example of xml-based syntax too
... it may not be possible to name rules so that those could be referenced directly
Jacek: it would be usefull to have an explicit name on rules, but we can reference file as a concept
Rama: we move the modelreference on a rule to operation
Jacek: Was Brahma working on WSML syntax of the rule?
Rama: yes
Joel: we should keep syntax as simple as possible
John: may be we can use another syntax (from protege?)
Jacek: some editorial comments: listing are in bold, double quotes are missing around xsd string, ...
Rama: currently there are no examples of effects
... we consider to add such examples
... if you have examples of effects please send them
Jacek: to indicate whether the conditions is preconditions or effects, we can move the modelreference on to inputs
rama: that would make sense, but conditions will become less reusable
Jacek: the condition would be on input/output and not on the xsd element
Jacek: semantic annotations should be recognized on any WSDL elements, they can be used everywhere
Ajith: we need sections what annotations describe on inputs/outputs
... if you put annotations on inputs/outputs, your schema could be external
... reusability issue come to play when talking about faults
Jacek: example would be welcome, somebody can draft a section on annotating inputs and outputs
... i would like to have a proposal for such sections so that we can reveal problems
... John will send the e-mail (on behalf of Ajith who is not part of the group) with use case
<JacekK> ACTION: JohnM to provide an example for annotating operation inputs and/or outputs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070123#action04]
Jacek: we should make references to XML schema component model
... annotations apply to xml schema even if they are out of WSDL
... it has to be the whole message that is mapped using schemamapping (thus we only support schema mapping on global declarations)
... We can use parts of the e-mail sent and use it as explanatory text
<JacekK> ACTION: JacekK to reply to Mary about the limitation for only global element declaration and type definition for schema mappings [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070123#action05]
Jacek: we postpone this topic for the next call
Ajith: By next week we will have the use case
Jacek: send it by the weekend please