19:16:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
19:16:59 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/08-ws-ra-irc
19:17:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
19:17:01 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ws-ra
19:17:03 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WSRA
19:17:03 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
19:17:04 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
19:17:04 <trackbot> Date: 08 September 2009
19:17:20 <Yves> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Sep/0015.html
19:24:53 <Paul> Paul has joined #ws-ra
19:25:42 <Wu> Wu has joined #ws-ra
19:26:38 <Zakim> WS_WSRA()3:30PM has now started
19:26:45 <Zakim> +Doug_Davis
19:27:44 <fmaciel> fmaciel has joined #ws-ra
19:27:46 <Zakim> + +1.208.234.aaaa
19:28:40 <Zakim> - +1.208.234.aaaa
19:28:53 <Zakim> +Wu_Chou
19:28:53 <Vikas> Vikas has joined #ws-ra
19:29:02 <Paul> Zakim,  aaaa is Paul
19:29:02 <Zakim> sorry, Paul, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
19:29:04 <li> li has joined #ws-ra
19:29:09 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-ra
19:29:36 <Tom_Rutt> Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
19:29:40 <Zakim> + +1.571.262.aabb
19:29:49 <Zakim> + +984999aacc
19:29:57 <Zakim> + +1.408.970.aadd
19:30:04 <Paul> Zakim,  aa is Paul
19:30:04 <Zakim> sorry, Paul, I do not recognize a party named 'aa'
19:30:32 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
19:31:11 <Zakim> + +1.408.642.aaee
19:31:18 <Zakim> +Yves
19:31:36 <Ram> Ram has joined #ws-ra
19:31:50 <gpilz> zakim, aaee is gpilz
19:31:53 <Zakim> +gpilz; got it
19:32:19 <dug> zakim, aacc is Paul
19:32:19 <Zakim> +Paul; got it
19:32:28 <dug> (Paul  - is that right?)
19:32:46 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
19:33:25 <Zakim> + +1.208.234.aaff
19:36:24 <Yves> Scribe: Dug
19:36:25 <dug> scribe: Dug
19:36:29 <asir> asir has joined #ws-ra
19:36:33 <Yves> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Sep/0015.html
19:36:46 <dug> Topic: approval of agenda
19:36:54 <dug> approved w/o
19:37:01 <dug> Topic: approve minutes from last week
19:37:03 <Yves> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/9/09/2009-09-01.html
19:37:10 <Ram> q+
19:37:10 <Ashok> Ashok has joined #ws-ra
19:37:32 <Sreed> Sreed has joined #ws-ra
19:37:46 <dug> Ram: sent in a note about "updated references" - would like to review on today's call
19:37:47 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
19:37:52 <dug> Yves: will add to the agenda
19:38:15 <dug> minutes approved w/o
19:38:33 <dug> Topic: UK F2F Logistics 
19:38:48 <dug> Yves: complete the questionnaire 
19:38:58 <dug> ... everyone find docs/hotel info... ok?
19:39:14 <dug> Wu: info on how to take the train from London would be nice
19:39:27 <dug> Paul: will send info to the group - from LHR
19:39:28 <Ram> q+
19:39:59 <dug> Ram: best way to get from LHR to Winchester?  Taxi? Train?
19:40:28 <dug> Paul: train is a lot of trouble -need to take a bus - taxi is the easiest
19:41:21 <dug> ... name of taxi company is in the doc I sent
19:41:25 <dug> ... will make sure it does
19:41:37 <dug> Topic: 2009-09-02 Snapshot review
19:41:50 <dug> Yves: anyone reviewed?
19:41:53 <Ram> q+
19:42:22 <dug> Ram: would like more time - by next week's call
19:42:38 <dug> Yves: would like to make these a Working Group Draft
19:42:46 <dug> ... everyone please review for next week
19:42:57 <dug> Topic: Schedule
19:43:15 <dug> Yves: # of open AIs might cause us to slip
19:43:52 <dug> ... proposal is to open new issue if they are substantive 
19:43:59 <dug> ... please send new issue before Sept 18th
19:44:06 <dug> ... just a way to try to focus on the schedule
19:44:11 <dug> q+
19:44:19 <Ram> q-
19:44:57 <dug> Dug: ok with pushing but I'm not sure about Sept 18th
19:45:00 <gpilz> q+
19:45:34 <dug> Yves: not a black-n-white thing about opening new issue - will be a judgement call
19:45:36 <dug> q-
19:45:57 <dug> ... won't allow people to fight for hours just to open an issue - just used to push people to make progress
19:46:12 <dug> Gil: deadline after the F2F might make more sense
19:46:20 <asir> q+
19:46:33 <dug> ... 2nd week of Oct
19:46:46 <dug> Yves: f2f's are different and the pace is much faster
19:47:21 <dug> Asir: At last f2f that we would go to LC on Oct 12
19:47:52 <dug> Yves: please raise issues ASAP
19:47:59 <dug> Topic:AI review
19:48:34 <Yves> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/tracker/actions/10
19:48:37 <dug> AI10 - on Geoff
19:48:48 <dug> proposal for 6549
19:49:22 <dug> AI11 - on Geoff - 6550
19:49:57 <dug> Asir: RT issues - Ram will scrub those issues - is dependent on ws-frag
19:50:34 <gpilz> q+ to discuss AI 99
19:50:49 <dug> AI67 - Yves - partial put - not done yet - week after next
19:51:06 <dug> AI81 - Ram/Dug proposal for ws-frag
19:51:17 <dug> Ram: still working on it - by next call
19:52:00 <dug> AI92 - proposal for 6568-6572 - Ram
19:52:24 <dug> Ram: those are about the references
19:52:35 <dug> ... proposals are in the email he sent
19:53:34 <Zakim> + +7.894.80.aagg
19:53:40 <dug> AI94 - pending ws-frag approval - Ram
19:54:24 <dug> AI97 - Yves- proposal for 7426 - done
19:54:44 <Zakim> gpilz, you wanted to discuss AI 99
19:55:28 <dug> AI99 - proposal on 7478
19:55:58 <dug> Gil: negotiation around expiration time
19:56:29 <dug> ... want subscriber to be able to say:  a) don't care,  b) at least this amount of time, or c) don't expire
19:56:46 <dug> ... in current spec expiration time can be a duration or a dateTime
19:57:08 <dug> ... source can say "can't support duration" or "can't support dateTime".  Asking for a profile.
19:57:25 <dug> ... sink can't tell, in advance, which is supported
19:57:31 <Zakim> + +7.590.29.aahh
19:57:48 <dug> ... could get into a situation where the two sides never agree
19:57:56 <DaveS> DaveS has joined #ws-ra
19:58:05 <dug> ... seems we should get rid of one of the two options
19:58:12 <DaveS> Dave S. Joined the cal.
19:58:14 <dug> Yves: to mandate one and get rid of the other?
19:58:21 <Ram> q+
19:58:21 <dug> Gil: yes - how do people feel?
19:58:48 <dug> Ram: why shouldn't we have that flexibility? 
19:59:13 <dug> Gil: multiple ways of doing the same thing will create an interop problem.  We don't gain anything by having both. You can easily convert between the two.
19:59:35 <dug> Ram: would like more time to think about it
20:00:08 <dug> ... if they are interchangeable it would require clock-syncing
20:00:20 <dug> ... duration starts from the time the source receives the msg
20:00:35 <Ram> q+
20:00:38 <dug> Gil: sink doesn't know when it really starts -it could take a long time for the quest to get there
20:00:43 <dug> s/quest/request/
20:01:16 <dug> Yves: dateTime requires resolving issues around timezones - duration doesn't have that concern
20:01:27 <dug> ... would prefer duration
20:02:09 <dug> Ram: want more time to think about it
20:02:24 <dug> ... if we can convert then it might not be a big deal
20:02:28 <dug> s/then/them/
20:03:22 <dug> ... acks Gil's issue
20:03:33 <dug> ... what is the usecase that is driving the need?
20:03:58 <Zakim> - +7.894.80.aagg
20:04:10 <dug> ... subscriber asks for 5 hrs, source only wants to allow for 30 mins
20:04:19 <dug> ... subscriber could send a renew to ask for more
20:04:47 <dug> ... want to understand why renew isn't good enough
20:05:59 <dug> Gil: subscriber can renew - that's not the issue.  But it might not want to do it that frequently
20:06:09 <dug> q+
20:06:39 <dug> ... perhaps min amount of time between renew's is 30 mins - source could come back and say "renew every 5 mins"
20:06:58 <dug> ... subscriber might not be happy with that
20:07:25 <dug> ... resources could have been allocated in advance based on the assumption that the subscription would be longer-lived
20:07:55 <dug> ... would like to check constraints in advance
20:08:04 <Ram> q+
20:08:05 <li> q+
20:09:23 <dug> Dug: renew might not be accepted
20:09:27 <asir> asir has joined #ws-ra
20:09:49 <dug> Ram: Gil's concern is valid
20:10:08 <DaveS> q+
20:10:37 <dug> ... if we allowed people to ask for "min amount of time" source will reject it
20:11:04 <dug> ... subscriber would like to know what the source will accept
20:11:58 <dug> ... subscriber has a choice - go with best attempt, or be willing to accept a rejection
20:12:18 <dug> ... in the real world do we expect subscribers to put demands on the src?  or accept what they get?
20:12:50 <dug> ... most lean towards "best attempt"
20:13:22 <dug> Gil: there are cases where the subscriber doesn't care or ok with the what the src offers
20:13:38 <dug> ... but not everyone works this way
20:15:07 <dug> Li: this issue is trying to add a level of guarantee by the src
20:15:35 <dug> ... specifying finite vs infinite is already there - but guarantee isn't
20:16:04 <dug> Gil: "guarantee" is an orthogonal issue
20:16:32 <dug> ... problem isn't the guarantee - its the inefficiency of the negotiation 
20:17:20 <dug> Li: in proposal - ask for 5, if src can't give at least 5 then fault
20:17:28 <dug> ... that's a kind of guarantee
20:18:01 <dug> Gil: in the current spec, the SubscribeResponse contains the guarantee 
20:18:34 <dug> Li: ask for 5 mins (or fault) - src gives back 5 min, can it send a SubscriptionEnd in less than 5?
20:18:43 <dug> Gil: yes - SubEnd is for "unexpected" failure
20:19:02 <dug> ... this is about "normal" course of events
20:19:09 <dug> Li: src can still end prematurely 
20:19:19 <dug> ... distinction appears to be very small
20:20:21 <dug> Dave: subscription processing needs to be crisp - not overloaded with discovery/negotiation protocols  - use policy
20:20:40 <dug> ... "I didn't do what you wanted, is this ok instead?"  kind of thing would be bad.
20:21:27 <dug> Gil: diff between expires and other reasons to terminate is sort of like faulting behavior 
20:22:14 <dug> ... could be lots of reasons to terminate early - but expiration time is about scheduled shutdown
20:22:37 <dug> ... not "abnormal" - just normal lifecycle of subscription
20:23:00 <dug> Li: will take off-line
20:23:05 <dug> Topic: progress on ws-frag
20:23:26 <dug> Dug: Ram already covered this - by next week
20:23:30 <dug> Topic: new issues
20:23:37 <dug> 7486: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7486
20:24:28 <dug> Dug: issue around what to do with optional elements during a Put
20:24:31 <dug> issue accepted w/o
20:24:43 <dug> Topic: Issues with proposals
20:24:56 <dug> Topic: 7127:  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7127
20:26:08 <dug> Tom: related to 6401
20:26:25 <dug> ... accomodated by 6401
20:26:39 <dug> resolution: close w/no action - accommodated by 6401
20:26:40 <Wu> +1
20:27:07 <dug> Topic: 6411
20:27:11 <dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6411
20:27:24 <dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/att-0063/wsmex-6411-08-24-09.doc
20:27:56 <gpilz> scribe: gpilz
20:28:12 <gpilz> Doug: (describes latest profile)
20:28:47 <gpilz> ... GetMetadataFactory to get an EPR that works with WS-T
20:29:37 <gpilz> ... WS-T operations have additional attributes (@mex:Dialect, @mex:Identifier, @mex:Content)
20:30:17 <gpilz> ... interesting is the use of wst:Create to create a brand-new metadata resource
20:30:52 <Zakim> -Paul
20:30:54 <gpilz> ... creates a brand-new resource and gives you back the EPR as well as updating the set of "all metadata" to inlcude the newly created metadata
20:30:59 <DaveS> q+
20:31:31 <gpilz> Yves: you mean all the metadata that is specified as being an attribute?
20:31:35 <Zakim> + +91.98.49.99.aaii
20:32:04 <gpilz> Doug: you use the attributes to tell the factory endpoint what it is that you want to create
20:32:15 <gpilz> ... I tried to create an example.
20:32:25 <gpilz> ... the second example uses wst:Put
20:33:17 <gpilz> DaveS: why wouldn't you do this with something like WS-Frag?
20:33:37 <gpilz> ... you're trying to identify parts of the whole metadata document, why not just identify the part you want to modify?
20:33:46 <gpilz> ... are you trying to do a similar kind of thing?
20:34:16 <gpilz> Doug: I don't think so. I don't view this as a single, massive "metadata document". I view it as a collection of separate resources.
20:34:36 <gpilz> ... you may not have a separate resource per metadata document
20:34:42 <asir> q+
20:35:01 <gpilz> DaveS: I need to go away and think about this some more
20:35:26 <gpilz> ... either there are separate documents, each with their own EPR, or there is one complete "metadata document"
20:35:41 <gpilz> ... I need a picture
20:36:11 <gpilz> Asir: I'm as confused as Dave is by the proposal
20:36:39 <gpilz> ... my recollection from the F2F is that we agreed to add an operation that gets an EPR to the metadata factory
20:36:48 <gpilz> ... this seems to go beyond that.
20:36:53 <Zakim> - +1.408.970.aadd
20:37:00 <asir> q+
20:37:24 <dug> 2009-08-06:
20:37:26 <dug> Agreement on direction. Add operations to MEX to expose factory EPR so that
20:37:28 <dug> TRANSFER optional operation may be used on the factory EPR to create/modify
20:37:29 <dug> metadata.
20:37:31 <dug> Action on Doug to create proposal along these lines
20:37:31 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
20:38:19 <gpilz> Doug: it might be better to wait until the F2F to discuss this
20:38:54 <gpilz> Asir: based on the direction we agreed to it doesn't look like we need more that up to 6.2
20:39:04 <gpilz> Doug: for explanatory reasons we need 6.3?
20:39:07 <dug> Topic: 5724
20:39:14 <gpilz> Topic: 5724
20:39:24 <Yves> s/5724/6724/
20:39:30 <dug> yes sorry
20:39:33 <Ram> q+
20:39:38 <dug> Dug: no new proposal yet - still being worked on
20:39:48 <dug> scribe: Dug
20:39:54 <dug> Dug: no new proposal yet - still being worked on
20:39:56 <asir> :-)
20:40:53 <dug> Ram: want to go over the references
20:41:01 <dug> Topic: discuss references update
20:41:10 <Yves> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Sep/0022.html
20:41:39 <Yves> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Sep/att-0022/References_update.doc
20:41:52 <dug> Ram: doc has all of the refs across all the docs
20:42:03 <dug> .. for each one - is this the latest?
20:42:16 <dug> ... a number of them needed to be updated
20:42:53 <dug> ... rfc2119 - added IETF to the anchor same for RFC 3986
20:43:04 <dug> ... and some textual changes to the refs
20:43:48 <Tom_Rutt> q+
20:44:06 <dug> ... soap1.1 - needed to be more descriptive
20:44:26 <dug> Yves: could be good to look at the impact this will have
20:44:54 <dug> ... latest revision of some specs could impact our specs
20:46:05 <dug> Tom: ref to BP1.1 - why the ref to keith?
20:46:15 <dug> q+
20:46:37 <dug> q-
20:46:48 <dug> Yves: normal process for w3c
20:47:02 <dug> Ram: BP is just ref'd from RT
20:47:16 <dug> ... do we need this reference?
20:47:23 <Ram> BP reference in RT:
20:47:24 <Ram> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/wsrt.html#reqs
20:47:33 <Ram> This specification intends to meet the following requirements: 
20:48:08 <dug> "Define WSDL 1.1 portTypes, for the Web service methods described in this specification, compliant with WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 "
20:49:24 <dug> Yves: ref to policy could be an impact on our specs
20:49:32 <dug> Ram: already covered by a previous issue
20:50:18 <dug> Ram goes thru each ref
20:51:14 <dug> Ram: how do cross-refs work in w3c?
20:51:48 <Tom_Rutt> q+
20:52:08 <dug> Yves: cross refs are handled on - soap did this between part1 and part2
20:52:28 <dug> ... only link to specs at the same level or one level below
20:52:39 <asir> Yves: can cross refs be automated?
20:52:39 <dug> PR level can point to CR but not WD - for normative refs
20:53:06 <dug> Yves: (to asir) yes can be automated
20:53:15 <dug> ... should be - less issues that way
20:53:28 <dug> Asir: new issue for editors?
20:54:01 <dug> Yves: action to editors to automate the cross-links
20:54:07 <Tom_Rutt> with all the hard work in the industry to align the "v.Next" specs, lets be sure we have the correct references to the properly aligned V.Next ws* specs
20:54:23 <dug> action: editors to automate the cross-links
20:54:23 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - editors
20:54:39 <asir> Action: Doug to automate cross-links among WS-RA specs
20:54:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-100 - Automate cross-links among WS-RA specs [on Doug Davis - due 2009-09-15].
20:54:56 <dug> Tom: is worried that the automation might not work in all cases
20:55:03 <dug> Yves: should like to dated versions
20:55:52 <li> s/like/link/
20:55:54 <dug> Asir: we've done this before
20:57:05 <dug> Ram: will double check the refs/authors...
20:57:30 <dug> ... any comments before the final proposal?
20:57:50 <dug> +1 to ending  ;-)
20:58:09 <dug> Adjourned 
20:58:19 <Zakim> - +91.98.49.99.aaii
20:58:20 <Zakim> - +1.571.262.aabb
20:58:21 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
20:58:22 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
20:58:23 <Zakim> - +1.208.234.aaff
20:58:25 <Zakim> -Wu_Chou
20:58:25 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
20:58:25 <Zakim> - +7.590.29.aahh
20:58:26 <Zakim> -Yves
20:58:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/08-ws-ra-minutes.html Yves
21:11:27 <Zakim> -Doug_Davis
21:11:37 <Yves>  
21:15:43 <Zakim> -gpilz
21:15:44 <Zakim> WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
21:15:45 <Zakim> Attendees were Doug_Davis, +1.208.234.aaaa, Wu_Chou, +1.571.262.aabb, +984999aacc, +1.408.970.aadd, Tom_Rutt, +1.408.642.aaee, Yves, gpilz, Paul, [Microsoft], +1.208.234.aaff,
21:15:48 <Zakim> ... Ashok_Malhotra, +7.894.80.aagg, +7.590.29.aahh, +91.98.49.99.aaii
23:12:56 <gpilz> gpilz has left #ws-ra
23:29:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #ws-ra