16:45:20 RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra 16:45:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/26-ws-ra-irc 16:45:22 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:45:22 Zakim has joined #ws-ra 16:45:24 Zakim, this will be WSRA 16:45:24 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 16:45:25 Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference 16:45:25 Date: 26 January 2010 16:48:40 dug has joined #ws-ra 16:52:22 test 16:52:46 pong 16:52:47 Hi Tom 16:53:02 Hi , let me know when to dial in 16:55:45 Sreed has joined #ws-ra 16:57:04 Bob has joined #ws-ra 16:58:26 Yves is working on the zakin dial-up issues 16:58:40 asoldano has joined #ws-ra 16:59:23 Vikas has joined #ws-ra 17:02:14 "the conference is restricted" message is on the phone 17:02:30 they're working on it 17:02:59 ok, Yves; conference Team_(ws-ra)17:02Z scheduled with code 26633 (CONF3) for 480 minutes until 0102Z 17:03:54 Team_(ws-ra)17:02Z has now started 17:04:01 +vikas 17:04:17 +[Fujitsu] 17:04:54

li has joined #ws-ra 17:05:25 + +39.331.574.aaaa 17:06:30 +Tom_Rutt 17:06:51 Zakim, aaaa is asoldano 17:06:51 +asoldano; got it 17:10:08

can't dial in 1-617-761-6200, says "conference is restricted at this time" 17:10:29 li, use code 26633 17:11:08 + +1.908.696.aabb 17:11:36 zakim, aabb is Li 17:11:36 +Li; got it 17:11:42

thanks, asoldano 17:11:46 np li 17:12:10 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0131.html 17:13:08 Topic: Agenda discussion 17:14:20 Request for the following issues for tomorrow from Ram: 17:14:30 zakim, who is making noise? 17:14:41 dug, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: asoldano (15%), [Fujitsu] (66%) 17:15:18 6435, 6436, 8196, 8205, 8290 17:16:38 These will be dealt with tomorrow. 17:17:25 gpilz has joined #ws-ra 17:17:57 Topic: 6433, 7728, 8031 17:18:52 MOAP doc: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/att-0094/mex-6463-8301-7728-proposal.doc 17:19:23 Doug reviewed the above document. 17:19:27 Key Points: 17:19:36 Wu has joined #ws-ra 17:19:51 - How do we advertice "feature" WSDL? 17:20:19 - Then how do we distinguish the different types of WSDL? 17:20:33

sorry have to drop off for an urgent call 17:20:39 -Li 17:20:52 The proposal moves the feature wsdl to a position after the advertizement of the feature in the policy assertion. 17:21:02 + +03531803aacc 17:22:22 It also provides a WSDL Mex request only returns the application WSDL. The others come from the assertions. 17:22:28 Ram has joined #ws-ra 17:22:29 q+ 17:22:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/att-0094/mex-6463-8301-7728-proposal.doc 17:22:40 ack tom 17:23:04 Tom: Could the feature WSDL ever also be an application WSDL? 17:23:24 Doug: Yes, but probably out of scope of this WG. 17:25:36 Asir: For clarity, we are talking about associating metadata (e.g. WSDL) with the feature policy assertion? 17:25:41 Doug: Yes. 17:26:44 Doug: the proposal is general in the sense that it associates metadata with it feature assertion. 17:27:48 Gil: Asserts that Eventing specifies only one WSDL for an endpoint. 17:28:21 Confirmed A.2.1 of eventing 17:29:04 Doug: The point may be valid if there are multiple WSDLs associated with the assertion. 17:29:26 The policy creator has the option to do it however, the need. 17:30:09 Asir: How do we reference multipl schema docs. 17:30:27 Doug: Thses would be included (via includes) in the WSDL. 17:31:28 Ram: Are we restricting this to one artefact? 17:32:35 Dooug: Short answer - no restriction, but guiadance to wrap these based on the feature type. 17:34:04 There was a short detour into Paul's concerns. 17:34:48 Doug: The same pattern may apply to Paul's issues. 17:35:22 Asir: Asir believes that there is a different pattern. 17:35:38 Look at the transfer assertion, a QName only. 17:36:29 xs:QName 17:37:08 Doug: This QName referes the type. 17:37:40 ping 17:39:28 asir has joined #ws-ra 17:40:14 Asir: There is a resource policy assertion param, that indicates the QName. 17:40:21 Asir: Do you want to use the same pattern? 17:41:22 Doug: the problem is not really knowing which element in the collection would refer to the resource type. 17:42:09 Asir: Can we use the same patter in both plces? 17:42:44 Doug: Feels they are different, because in the Ws-T case we don't know which is refeing to the resources. 17:42:59 s/patter/pattern 17:43:43 s/plces/both 17:44:24 Doug: Basically, each feature would have it's own WSDL. 17:44:55 Asir: The same forother features, e.g. frag's dialect assertion. 17:45:14 s/forother/for other/ 17:46:20 q+ 17:46:31 q- 17:46:31 Asir: Would like to study more.So on to the next bit. 17:46:47 Status: 17:47:28 - Need a list of assetions where this applies? 17:47:47 - Need to identift the assertions where extenibility need to be addressed. 17:47:58 - Does this apply to Paul's issue? 17:48:44 Doug: For the first, we can do it for the specs we control, but other should be encouraged to follow the pattern. 17:50:27 It is not clear what the question about WS-T means. 17:51:33 s/identift/identify 17:51:56 - We need to make the ecommendation to other users explicit. 17:52:18 Example walk through: 17:52:44 See WSDL+EventSource. 17:53:57 This shows how to assert that Eventing is supported. 17:54:17 See: Next section 17:54:57 This one defines event description metadata. 17:55:01 Next: 17:55:17 This one shows how to add WSDL. 17:56:52 This example may help with the WSDD discussion. 17:57:11 Ram: This does seem to work, but .... 17:57:36 Asir: The mail suggestes that it needs to be more abstract 17:57:46 Doug: E.g. in the PortType. 17:59:05 Bob: Assuming that we are happy with this approach, then the WSDD might be solved by moving this to the PortType. 17:59:23 Next Example: 18:00:13 This one inlines a specific WS-Eventing WSDL document. 18:00:35 This one provides a specific (different) address for events. 18:00:48 Next Example: 18:01:04 Sam as above, but links to metadat rather tan inlined. 18:02:01 Two approaches are shown. 18:02:20 Asir: These are new features: 18:03:53 Doug: Include new feature for Mex (two flavours) 18:04:38 There seems to be a slight difference from the pattern in the Mex document. 18:05:19 Asir: Are the semantics dependent onthe semantics of the parrent? 18:05:32 -vikas 18:05:49 Doug: MEX does not say anything specific. 18:06:43 So this association may move the semantics, e.g use an include here rather than inlining. 18:07:03 Asir: Why not add a new context free element? 18:07:43 Doug: Do we add new elements to Mex. 18:08:18 Asir: No, use new generic elements. 18:08:45 Doug: Good point, don't use the element from eslewhere. 18:08:57 Asir: Sounds good. 18:09:13 See example Metadat in an EPR 18:09:58 As before the exaples forllow a progressing addition of more complexity. 18:11:57 Review the Summary section: 18:14:34 The EPR discussion may be ssociated to another issue, but not critical here. 18:15:05 Consider droping this issue here and deal with it under the other issue. 18:15:43 Need to check carefully which issues are closed by this approach. 18:16:12 See section "One of the nice things ...." 18:16:45 All metadata could appear in one place. 18:16:47 which bullet? 18:17:18 See beginning of the document. 18:18:10 By using the ?wsdl (or mex.GetMetadata("wsdl") mapping is very easy to explain. 18:18:47 Asir: Currently their is no equivalent to ?wsdl. 18:19:38 Gil: The application gets to descide what "wsdl" means. 18:21:20 It is unclear what ?wsdl means, so it make this dificult to define. 18:22:01 Gil: The app developer could create a single document (mostly like ?wsdl). 18:23:58 Gil: Get Metedata can return a lot of stuff. get wsdl would return just one wsdl. 18:24:59 Doug: A get wesdl operation that colsely follows "wsdl pattern. 18:25:15 s./"wsdl/?wsdl/ 18:25:48 Jeff: What do I need to know to use the bag of stuf. 18:26:08 Doug: this proposal aim to address this problem. 18:27:28 Jeff: The get wsdl at least we know the schema of what comes gack. 18:27:37 s/gack/back/ 18:28:45 A diversion about giving up on GetMetadat entirely. 18:30:00 isnt that a meta-meta model jeff 18:30:03 Asir: Some advanced tools can deal with less information. 18:31:10 Doug: Let's do this and talk about some other details later. 18:31:26 Jeff: the metamodel of WSDL is available. 18:31:53 Bob: Are we agreed that this is a good road to fiollow? 18:32:17 Doug: Next step is to make the Mex and Eventing spec cahnges. 18:32:59 Asir: Why don't we make Doug do them all? 18:33:14 Bob: Only if Asir is really happy with the approach. 18:33:57 Asir: There are some bullets that need addressing. Doug should go for all of them in all the pecs and let's push forward. 18:34:00 +Li 18:34:11 Specific on the new elements. 18:34:59 Doug: Wants agreement generall and will attack the spec ASAP. 18:35:23 Resloution: We have directional agreement based on the 5 bullets avove. 18:35:35 Fresh names. 18:35:39 get WSDL. 18:35:55 Postpone Paul's issue when we get there. 18:36:18 List of assertions. 18:36:43 Recommendation to other spec writers 18:36:52 Policy assertion on the porttype. 18:37:35 what is next? 18:38:45 Since Martin is here 7986 will be next. 18:38:57 Break to 10:50 PST 18:38:57 -asoldano 18:39:10 Topic: 7986 18:41:57 Do we know when will 8196 and 8229 (namespace issues) be discussed? 18:42:23 -Tom_Rutt 18:48:09 +vikas 18:51:14 tom, sometime this afternoon I hope 18:52:12 Resumming. 18:52:14 q+ 18:53:17 Toipc: 7986 18:53:53 +Tom_Rutt 18:54:15 s/Toipc 18:54:22 How does the EventSink know the available policies available? 18:54:27 s/Toipc/Topic 18:55:13 Gil: An event source can send notification. 18:55:24 The sink can say, please do it this way. 18:55:50 This can be placed in the notify EPR. 18:56:12 How does the sink know what approaches are likely to work. 18:57:11 Doug: If the source can publich notification wsdls this is a sloution 18:57:28 But thsi si not required, e.g. it uses event descriptions. 18:58:03 s/thsi si/this is/ 18:58:06 No concrete proposal yet. 18:58:28 s/publich/publish 18:58:49 q+ 18:58:52 DaceS: Is this really needed? 18:58:58 ack mart 18:59:03 ack asir 18:59:27 Doug: Forcing use of not. wsdl or fault driven discovery is not good enough. 18:59:46 Without not WSDL where is thin information available. 19:00:00 s/not/Not./ 19:01:15 Doug: Because Not. WSDL is not required, but for this bit of information to be available, this is the only way at present. 19:02:11 Asir; This is providing policy for the next level of interaction. Similar to Paul's request. 19:02:21 Wu has joined #ws-ra 19:03:19 Doug: Proposal to define another policy parameter that could be used in a notify to EPR. 19:03:50 wchou has joined #ws-ra 19:03:56 Gil: Identify all the available poilcies and provide only the ID. 19:04:05 Doug: Is this possible? 19:04:21 Asir: You can used named policy assertions. 19:04:40 Vikas has joined #ws-ra 19:05:01 Asir: You can name the policy assertion. 19:05:58 A list of experssion can each have a name, but an expression with alternative won't fly. 19:07:14 Resoultion: This seems a reasonable (if not very tasty) direction. 19:07:18 s/name the policy assertion/name the policy./ 19:07:53 Topic: 8180 19:08:15 Topic: 8198 19:08:17 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8198 19:08:56 q+ 19:09:02 Doug: Should be covered by the MOAF proposal. 19:09:24 The support for that resolution being allowed on the portType as well. 19:09:25 s/MOAF/MOAP 19:09:51 Fred Maciel Joins 19:10:42 Gil: A portType now could include binding specific policy. 19:10:58 q+ 19:10:59 This is not really a good idea. 19:11:20 An advisory could probably be added, here. 19:11:28 ack asir 19:11:29 q+ 19:12:02 Asir: Accouring to Anton there is something about the associatin cardinality rules. 19:12:41 WU; We know how to do the bindings, but just need the abstract information (ie the association. 19:13:00 q+ 19:13:35 Doug: This should be possible at the portType level. 19:14:16 Doug: It may be silly to put binding info in the portType, but so what. It could also be profilesd. 19:14:38 q- 19:16:20 q- 19:16:40 Gil: It seems that we might be agreeing. The parameters are important. 19:16:57 they have WSDLs, therefore you have to support ti 19:17:02 s/ti/it/ 19:17:38 Wu: You only do the matching at the assertion level. The parameters provide further information. 19:17:54 Gil: These parameters are surely important. 19:17:57 zakim, who is making noise? 19:18:09 MartinC, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Fujitsu] (76%) 19:18:40 ack wu 19:19:03 Wu: It is untamately no proble to provide binding information in both places. 19:19:28 Resolution: This one should be closed along with MOAP 19:19:37 Topic: 8275 19:20:07 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8275 19:20:45 wchou has joined #ws-ra 19:21:09 fmaciel has joined #ws-ra 19:21:18 Gil: What can we say to push developer toward a recommended dialect. 19:21:36 Shold we point to XPath 1.0 19:22:37 Support fort he XPath 1.0 dialect (described below) is RECOMMENDED. Alternate filter 19:22:38 dialects can be defined. Such dialect definitions MUST include sufficient 19:22:40 information for proper application. 19:23:06 Resolved: 8275 as indicated by Bob above. 19:24:21 Gil: Is this implying that filter is recommended. 19:24:30 If filtering is supported, then support for the XPath 1.0 dialect (described below) is RECOMMENDED. Alternate filter dialects can be defined. Such dialect definitions MUST include sufficient information for proper application. 19:24:47 Resolution: 8275 as above. 19:25:36 Doug: Does this apply to Enum as well? 19:26:00 Doug: There is a place for this in Enum. 19:26:55 Reslolution: 8275 can aslo apply to Enumeration. 19:27:16 Topic: 8288 19:27:35 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8288 19:28:08 Gil: There is a proposal and it's a good one. 19:28:34 Resolved: As proposed modifiec by comment #1 (8288) 19:29:17 Topic: 8299 19:30:25 Ram: there is a dependency between this one and 8303 19:30:39 s/8308/8302/ 19:30:54 s/8303/8302/ 19:31:23 Ram: These look like the same issue. 19:31:50 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0151.html 19:33:19 Ram: Targets two messages (Create/Put Response). Have a look at the text changes. 19:33:53 The curx is that there is something unclear about what happen with extension elements. 19:34:20 Doug: Works for no extension element, but what about when they are there? 19:34:52 Ram: Today the spec requires that you need to have the representation. 19:35:35 Asir: Say the rep comes first the extensions. 19:35:51 s.say/Spec/ 19:36:02 s/Say/Spec/ 19:37:16 Ram: In the spec, the response says the rep. must be there. Same in Create and Put. 19:37:33 Doug: Likes the Put Response wording. 19:38:22 Gil: Put response sounds good until the last sentence. (assuming mutating ....) 19:38:57 Ram: What this means is that there may be other changes made concurrently. 19:39:30 Gil: this may confuse some implementations. 19:39:43 Yves: This is good to say. 19:39:58 Maybe a separete sentence could be better. 19:40:56 Text requested: 19:41:41 Ashok has joined #ws-ra 19:44:45 Ram is mailing the text to the mailing list. 19:45:20 Gil: Does this work with 8299 as well as 8302? 19:45:41 Doug: 8180 looks like a part of this as well? 19:46:07 Maybe, but not now. 19:48:38 Action: Doug to prepare a concrete proposal for issue 7986 based on the direction established by the Working Group 19:48:39 Created ACTION-137 - Prepare a concrete proposal for issue 7986 based on the direction established by the Working Group [on Doug Davis - due 2010-02-02]. 19:49:46 q+ to ask an orthogonal question 19:49:51 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0156.html 19:49:56 Iq- 19:50:04 q- 19:52:09 Remove the sentence "This second child element, if present, MAY be an empty element depending on the resource representation." from the above proposal from CreateResponse. 19:53:37 Gil: 8299 is addressed for put, but this may not be as clear for create response. 19:54:15 Ram: First is the EPR then the representation. 19:54:23 Gil: How do we know that? 19:55:02 The porblem also exists in 8180 19:56:12 Doug: Do we just drop thie extensibility in responses`? 19:58:08 q+ on agenda timing question for 8196 and 8229 19:59:26 We will do these two tomorrow. 19:59:56 Break for one hour while we tweak the text. 19:59:58 ack asir 19:59:58 asir, you wanted to ask an orthogonal question 20:00:01 ack ram 20:00:11 q- 20:01:28 -Tom_Rutt 20:01:39 -[Fujitsu] 20:01:47 -MartinC 20:02:05 -vikas 20:04:01 -Li 20:04:03 Team_(ws-ra)17:02Z has ended 20:04:04 Attendees were vikas, [Fujitsu], +39.331.574.aaaa, Tom_Rutt, asoldano, +1.908.696.aabb, Li, +03531803aacc, MartinC 20:08:44 rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight 20:32:48 Vikas has joined #ws-ra 21:01:48 Team_(ws-ra)17:02Z has now started 21:01:54 +[Fujitsu] 21:02:05 we resume 21:02:06 ping 21:02:12 DaveS has joined #ws-ra 21:02:33 scribenick Ram 21:03:00 Continuing discussion on issue 8302 and 8299 21:03:02 Continuing discussion on issue 8302 and 8299 21:03:06 asir has joined #ws-ra 21:03:41 +MartinC 21:03:42 proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0158.html 21:06:46 gettin started yet? 21:06:47 Wu has joined #ws-ra 21:07:03 we resume 21:07:25 Gil: Presents proposal 21:09:22 +Tom_Rutt 21:09:44 q+ 21:09:51 ack ram 21:11:07 +vikas 21:11:31 continuing on 8302 21:12:46 q+ 21:13:27 ack dave 21:13:39 q+ 21:14:25 Dave: Does an extension in the request result in a subsequent extension in the response. 21:15:23 q+ 21:15:34 Gil: Should the resource manager create a representation that differs from what was supplied. 21:15:55 q+ 21:16:45 Doug: The current text was intended to create a resource that is close enough to what was supplied. 21:16:58 Gil: The current text does not reflect that. 21:17:33 ack gp 21:17:41 ack dug 21:17:50 Dug: I am wondering if we should take a step back and approach this differently. 21:18:04 zakim, who is making noise 21:18:04 I don't understand 'who is making noise', Bob 21:18:07 Dug: A Resource Manager can change the resource anytime. 21:18:18 zakim, who is noisy? 21:18:22 Dug: It may be useful to put a paragraph that states that above. 21:18:32 Bob, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Fujitsu] (65%), MartinC (5%) 21:18:59 Dug: The other thing to do is, to look at the problem, and say the bare minimum. 21:20:18 Dug: The extensibility seems more important. But should the resource representation be returned? 21:21:21 q? 21:21:43 Dug: Should the representation allow for explicit empty element. 21:22:33 ack ram 21:22:42 q+ 21:24:17 Ram: Should we discuss 8180? 21:24:32 Bob: Park this discussion for the moment. 21:24:40 TOPIC issue 8180 21:24:45 Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0149.html 21:25:05 q+ 21:25:15 proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0149.html 21:27:56 ack gpi 21:28:30 Gil: Should you return the resource representation? 21:29:05 q+ 21:30:26 Bob: Sending back a large representation as a result of a small change may not be useful. 21:32:13 ack ram 21:32:59 21:33:06 q+ 21:33:26 Ram: It may be useful to have empty representation form for Put and Create requests to null out the resource. 21:33:35 q+ 21:34:57 ack dug 21:35:01 21:35:33 This empty resource may appear on all operations. 21:36:18 Then remove returning the resource representation from CreateResponse and PutResponse. 21:36:29 can the scribe summarize? 21:36:58 s/This empty resource may appear on all operations/This empty resource must appear on all operations. 21:37:05 q+ 21:37:10 1) if the representation is in a msg it must be wrapped with no matter what operation we're talking about. 21:37:27 ack ram 21:39:11 q+ 21:40:01 q+ 21:40:50 ack gp 21:41:19 Ram: Having the representation in PutResponse and CreateResponse is complicated. 21:42:03 Gil: The resource may change change inadvertantly? 21:42:07 q+ 21:42:10 q+\ 21:42:14 q+ 21:42:33 ack \ 21:42:44 ack dug 21:42:53 q+ 21:43:14 Doug: I agree with Gil. 21:43:55 ack tom 21:44:35 Proposal: 1) add a paragraph in a generic spot that talks about how the res. mgr can modify the resource for a lot of reasons. 2) define/add to all operations. 3) remove implicit Get for Put/Create-Response. 21:44:37 Tom:I am in favor of getting rid of the optimization. 21:44:38 Tom:I am in favor of getting rid of the optimization. 21:45:06 ack ram 21:46:27 Bob: Are folks OK with adding a wst:Resource element? 21:47:24 This allows distinguishing the representation from extension elements. 21:47:59 q+ 21:49:40 Clarification of my question: Is this the semantics of put: "DO WHAT YOU CAN, GIVE A SUCCESS RESPONSE IF YOU CAN DO ANY OF IT, THEN LET THEM DO A GET TO FIND OUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED? 21:50:50 ack bob 21:51:42 ack ram 21:53:05 q+ 21:53:07 Dug: It is not good for the resource manager to return a huge representation in the response. 21:53:46 Proposal: 1) add a paragraph in a generic spot that talks about how the res. mgr can modify the resource for a lot of reasons. 2) define/add to all operations. 3) implicit Get - discuss tomorrow 21:53:53 ack dug 21:54:15 q+ 21:55:21 -vikas 21:57:22 tom, your answer is happening now 21:59:30