Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference -- 15 Sep 2009

<trackbot> Date: 15 September 2009

<gpilz> I'll drown myself tonight in sangria, made with slice-up fruit and cheap marsala

<Bob> scribenick Katy

<Bob> scribenick: Katy

Approval of agenda, approved

Approval of minutes: no comments, approved

F2F in Husley logistics

F2F in November

<scribe> Chair: considering schedule and deadline we would probably benefit for this.

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: Follow tech plenary start of November
... recommend registering by 31st Sept for early bird deadline. Also sign up quick for hotels

<Zakim> asir, you wanted to ask a question about Hursley F2F (when appropriate

Asir: Do we have enough at the F2F to do business

<scribe> Chair: Yes, 10 (with phone attendee) and possibly some who have not answered on ballot

Snapshot review of September 2nd docs

<dug> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Sep/0039.html

Doug: 2nd comment - talks about missing space can't locate the problem, sounds like it's the diffs tool
... Phrase of 3rd comment.

Valid Infoset for this specification are the one serializable in XML 1.0, hence the use of XML 1.0.

Agreed should be 'is' rather than 'are'.

<scribe> Chair: Have all issues that are incorporated in Sept 2nd review closable?

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: no comment so we will accept them as closed
... Hearing no objection, we shall publish these as heartbeat Working draft

Asir: Publication in transfer specification has a dangling reference
... to fragment

<Zakim> asir, you wanted to ask a question

<scribe> Chair: We haven't updated other references and prior snapshots have included references to other specs

Asir: There are 2 references (one in middle and one in end). One in middle refers to dialeect uri

<scribe> Chair: Does anyone have any objection to us publishing with these links still there?

Yves: We can link to the editors' copy if we want. If the link is auto gen'd to be part of the multi doc publication then we may need to do something else

Asir: That's fine if we can fix with pub rules

<scribe> Chair: No objections

RESOLUTION: Go ahead with heartbeat publications

<dug> wait? fruitful??? I thought it was a boondoggle!

Action item review

<scribe> Chair: do we have agreement for folk to produce produce action items in time for F2F so F2F is fruitful

Asir: There is only one policy assertion action item open. Should we have more?

<scribe> Chair: The intention was to base other policy issues on 6403 - that was going to be a template

Asir: Could Doug and I work on the others as well prior to the F2F?

Doug: Yes, so long as we get the template one in place

<scribe> Chair: Perhaps we could look at 6403 during next week's meeting

<scribe> ACTION: Asir and Doug to aim to get 6403 proposal for next week's meet as template for other policy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-101 - And Doug to aim to get 6403 proposal for next week's meet as template for other policy [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2009-09-22].

Whoops - I forgot realise that would actually create another action - sorry Asir and Doug!

<asir> That's fine - double reminder :-)

Initial draft of WS-Frag

Ram: I would like to consider dropping the WS-Frag spec and merging RT towards Frag?

<dug> something == an apple pie

<dug> with whip cream

<dug> or ice cream

<Bob> and cheese

Ram: Reference to fragment goes away and fragment dialect is replaced by something similar in RT spec

Doug: This is more of a structural decision rather than semantics. (i.e. should frag be part of RT)

<scribe> Chair: This has been ongoing discussion since Raliegh F2F. It is likely that some of the RT spec may come under discussion (based on issues)

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: we may be left with just Frag

<scribe> Chair: ... We could simply say, is there anything in the RT spec that we need to keep if Frag was in place

Doug: I would like one more week for this decision

<scribe> Chair: Next week is the deadline before RT issues are addressed

Ram: OK with me too

New issues

<scribe> ACTION: Katy to create new proposal for 7553 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-ws-ra-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-102 - Create new proposal for 7553 [on Katy Warr - due 2009-09-22].

RESOLUTION: 7553 opened
... 7554 opened

Gil: It should be clear to the unsubscriber, you should receive invalid subscription fault but during unsubscribe you should receive this unsubscribe fault
... in order to indicate that the subscription is still active

<scribe> ACTION: Katy to create proposal for 7554 that considers 7553 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-ws-ra-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-103 - Create proposal for 7554 that considers 7553 [on Katy Warr - due 2009-09-22].

Issue 7586

Gil: It is overly complex to have xs:duration and xs:datetime for subscriptions

RESOLUTION: 7586 is opened

<scribe> Chair: Is this predecessor to 7478

Gil: They are kindof separate. It has an existing proposal

<scribe> Chair: Could you provide a link to that proposal in bugzilla for this issue?

Gil: yes will do

RESOLUTION: 7587 opened
... 7588 opened

7589

RESOLUTION: 7589 opened

<scribe> ACTION: Gil to produce proposal for 7589 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-ws-ra-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Gil

<scribe> ACTION: GIlbert to produce proposal for 7589 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/15-ws-ra-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-104 - Produce proposal for 7589 [on Gilbert Pilz - due 2009-09-22].

Asir: When do we stop new issues coming in

<scribe> Chair: After Last call draft, if we make substantive changes, it drops back to last call

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: so I have no problem with new issues but substantive changes will drop us back

Doug: I agree that we need to close issues down but now is the time to step through the specs in detail and notice issues
... especially as we have spent more time on some specs than others

<scribe> Chair: If you have any substantive issues against RT, open them now

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: as don't know the frag direction

Issue 7426 IRI or URI

<Ram> Revision to RFC 3987 that is in progress at IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-bis-06.

Yves: Other specs support IRI, we should too. Or we should state that each time we use 'URI' we actually mean 'IRI'

<Ram> Just want to draw the attention of this WG to the work on the revision to RFC 3987.

Doug: This is basically a global replace?

Yves: Yes

Ram: Fine with Yves suggestion.
... but want to point out that there is a revision being worked upon (3987). This does not change the discussion
... I would just like to draw people's attention to this

<scribe> Chair: Is there a subsection that we should be pointing to?

<Yves> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt section 5

<Yves> 5.3.1. Simple String Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: We need to be aware of code set and representation and that IRI is intended to support many languages
... but simple string comparison is key here. We are saying that the 5.3.1 comparison may cause a false negative comparison
... so a comparison would be a code point by code point comparison to check for equivalence
... Are folks still ok with this resolution?

Asir: Previous specs did not do a global replace. For example, namespace must stay as URI
... so we need to be careful

Yves: In 2003 namespaces were not IRI enabled so back then we needed to be careful about namespaces being URI rather than IRI
... but 2006 recommendation IRI-enables namespaces

Asir: but 2006 and 6 has other issues such as xml11

<scribe> Chair: Need a bit more work on this

<Bob> acl gp

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: Yves, Doug and Asir discuss on this on public mailing list to get a proposal ready for next week

Gil: I am concerned about the test effort for this

Issue 6568

Ram: I have sent a proposal to address the problems with the references in the group of proposals relating to references

<Ram> Proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Sep/att-0037/WS-RA_references_update.doc

<Bob> and issues 6569, 6570, 6571, and 6572

Ram: I have gone through each of references and 1) make them point to the latest standards 2) decided whether the references are normative or not

<scribe> Chair: Can we use the technique for citing referencs in xslt 2

<dug> yves - i'm getting blocked again

<dug> 129.33.49.251

<Yves> http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References

<dug> any chance you could fix it (again) ?

<Yves> done ;)

<asir> here is an example

<asir> [XML1]

<asir> Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Edition), T. Bray, J. Paoli, E. Maler, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, F. Yergeau, Editors. World Wide Web Consortium, 16 August 2006, edited in place 29 September 2006. This edition of the XML 1.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/. The latest edition of XML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/.

Doug: Do we want to point to the lastest or the dated version

<scribe> Chair: would prefer that we link to a dated version rather than one that may not be yet written

RESOLUTION: Above issues 6568/69/70/71/72 accepted based on proposals from Ram. Dated version references and style guide here http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References for editors

<asir> Bob said - s/Non-normative References/Informative References/g

<dug> blocked again!

<Yves> now on two machine!

7486 Confusion regarding optional Put elements

RESOLTION: Proposal for 7486 accepted and 7486 is resolved

Issue-7478

<Bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Sep/0027.html

Ram: Assmuption that the eventing spec has made is that the souce decides what to send to subscriber and subscriber must code defensively. Source may have some resource constraints meaning that it cannot always provide client subscriptions
... how should client deal with this? Send unsubscribe? Gil's proposal is one way to deal with this may be others.

Bob: Small server community tend not to have concept of timezones or persistence.

<dug> earth-based?? LOL

Bob: What should client do if it gets a notication but it has no idea why because it didn't persist previous state is another scenraio
... restricted capabilities regarding time for small clients

Doug: Subscriber should have control as its the one asking for subscription. Should not be given a random period of time by which the subscription may live.

<scribe> Chair: Please add any issues with this proposal and others to mailing list.

- DRAFT -

Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference

15 Sep 2009

Attendees

Contents