20:30:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #ws-ra
20:30:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/01/25-ws-ra-irc
20:30:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
20:30:11 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #ws-ra
20:30:13 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be WSRA
20:30:13 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see WS_WSRA()3:30PM already started
20:30:14 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Services Resource Access Working Group Teleconference
20:30:14 <trackbot> Date: 25 January 2011
20:30:20 <Zakim> - +1.908.696.aaaa
20:30:28 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:30:31 <asoldano> asoldano has joined #ws-ra
20:30:47 <Zakim> + +1.831.713.aabb
20:31:00 <Zakim> + +1.908.696.aacc
20:31:14 <Zakim> + +44.196.281.aadd
20:31:18 <gpilz> gpilz has joined #ws-ra
20:31:24 <Ram> Ram has joined #ws-ra
20:31:44 <Zakim> + +39.331.574.aaee
20:32:07 <asoldano> Zakim, aaee is asoldano
20:32:07 <Zakim> +asoldano; got it
20:32:17 <Zakim> +Yves
20:33:01 <gpilz> SCRIBE: gpilz
20:33:04 <dug> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2011Jan/0059.html
20:33:56 <gpilz> TOPIC: Agenda
20:34:07 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: agenda agreed to
20:34:18 <gpilz> TOPIC: minutes from January 11th, 2011
20:34:27 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: minutes approved
20:34:33 <gpilz> TOPIC: F2F meeting preparation
20:34:49 <gpilz> Bob> like to clarify what I'm thinking about
20:35:08 <gpilz> ... typically there are some issues that come up as a result of implementing, issues that come up as part of testing
20:35:28 <gpilz> ... we have participants that will be at the F2F and others on the phone
20:35:43 <gpilz> ... would like to group issue discussions into the morning times, testing in the afternoons
20:35:43 <asoldano> nice idea
20:35:49 <gpilz> ... is that acceptable?
20:35:58 <gpilz> (no comments on phone)
20:36:27 <gpilz> ... as far as timings go - is start time of 9:00 ok?
20:36:41 <gpilz> Gil> 9:00 - 5:00 is fine
20:36:52 <gpilz> Bob> group dinner on 2/15?
20:37:06 <gpilz> Gil> I can scout around
20:37:10 <Ram> q+
20:37:13 <gpilz> ... make some recommendations
20:37:33 <BobF> ack ram
20:37:34 <gpilz> Ram> Gil, is breakfast or snacks served?
20:38:09 <gpilz> Gil> same deal as all Oracle conference center events
20:38:20 <gpilz> ... they put out food for breakfast and lunch in the hall
20:38:43 <gpilz> TOPIC: Table of Implementations
20:39:02 <gpilz> Bob> hasn't changed since the previous call
20:39:10 <gpilz> ... we've had a slew of new issues
20:39:31 <gpilz> Gil> maybe we could handle the simpler issues first?
20:39:58 <gpilz> ... these are all post-CR issues?
20:40:27 <gpilz> Bob> if we resolve an issue with a substantive change - we have to go back to Last Call
20:40:52 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue-11625
20:40:59 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11625
20:41:18 <gpilz> Doug> on DeleteMetadata - it doesn't say what to do if the target metadata doesn't exist
20:41:30 <gpilz> ... would like to see it have no effect - silent ignore
20:41:35 <gpilz> ... no fault etc.
20:41:45 <gpilz> Gil> could you expand?
20:42:08 <gpilz> Doug> if someone wants something deleted and it is already deleted (or just not there) - they have the intended result
20:42:17 <gpilz> ... why bother them with a fault?
20:42:25 <gpilz> q+
20:42:35 <BobF> ack gp
20:42:40 <Katy> q+
20:43:18 <Tom_Rutt> Tom_Rutt has joined #ws-ra
20:43:53 <gpilz> Gil> feeling uneasy about this - the client has no idea that what they thought was true isn't
20:44:04 <gpilz> Doug> they could always check if it mattered that much to them
20:44:22 <gpilz> Bob> we've been here before - MEX doesn't support any kind of transactionality
20:44:45 <BobF> ack katy
20:44:52 <gpilz> Katy> we've decided this before - the Delete should just fail silently
20:45:09 <gpilz> ... what would you do if you got a fault anyway?
20:45:21 <gpilz> Bob> any objections to accepting as a new issue
20:45:35 <gpilz> (none)
20:45:52 <gpilz> Bob> any objections to accpeting proposal for silent fail?
20:45:58 <gpilz> Gil> where's the explicit text?
20:46:01 <gpilz> Bob> in the issue
20:46:40 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Issue-11625 resolved with proposal in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11625
20:46:55 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue-11697
20:47:03 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11697
20:47:22 <gpilz> Doug> (explains issue)
20:48:23 <gpilz> q+
20:48:47 <BobF> ack gp
20:48:50 <gpilz> Bob> I think there is a pre-defined SOAP fault for this
20:49:06 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Issue-11697 accepted and left open
20:49:20 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue-11698
20:49:26 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11698
20:49:46 <gpilz> Doug> (explains)
20:50:11 <gpilz> ... implies that default for @Name is "unwrapped"
20:50:54 <Tom_Rutt> q+
20:51:09 <BobF> ack tom
20:51:21 <gpilz> Tom> doesn't option (1) require a schema change?
20:51:23 <gpilz> Doug> yes
20:51:30 <gpilz> Tom> I like option (2) better than
20:51:34 <Ram> q+
20:51:41 <gpilz> Bob> any objection to accepting as a new issue?
20:51:43 <gpilz> (none)
20:51:51 <BobF> ack ram
20:52:05 <gpilz> Ram> I don't have a particular comment - I just need more time to consider this
20:52:25 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Issue-11698 accepted and left open
20:52:41 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue-11703
20:52:48 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11703
20:53:10 <gpilz> Doug> (describes)
20:54:22 <gpilz> ... also the issue of what happens if the event source notices the bad filter later (after SubscribeResponse has been sent and processed)
20:54:33 <Tom_Rutt> q+
20:54:54 <BobF> ack tom
20:54:59 <gpilz> Tom> what is difference between that, and your disk drive going down?
20:55:17 <gpilz> ... maybe you should just kill the subscription and send a SubscriptionEnd
20:55:27 <gpilz> Doug> none, but you need to be explicit about it
20:56:01 <gpilz> Ram> I need more time on this as well
20:56:25 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Issue-11703 accepted but left open pending further investigation by Ram
20:56:39 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue-11723
20:56:44 <gpilz> Doug> (describes)
20:57:17 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11723
20:57:32 <gpilz> Doug> (proposes adding new fault)
20:58:11 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Issue-11723 accepted but left open pending further investigation by Ram
20:58:39 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue 11724
20:58:46 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11724
20:58:52 <gpilz> Doug> (describes)
20:59:09 <Tom_Rutt> q+
20:59:12 <gpilz> ... proposes rewording to make clear that an absent frag has no effect (fail silent)
20:59:17 <BobF> ack tom
20:59:27 <gpilz> Tom> when you say you don't do anything - you don't respond?
20:59:48 <gpilz> Doug> you send back a valid response message - as if the Delete had succeeded
20:59:56 <gpilz> Tom> sounds right to me
21:00:29 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Issue 11724 accepted but left open pending further investigation by Ram
21:00:43 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue 11725
21:00:50 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11725
21:00:57 <gpilz> Doug> (describes)
21:01:03 <gpilz> ... use InvalidInput fault
21:02:47 <gpilz> Gil> (confusing rant about not requiring receiver to validate everything the consumer sends it)
21:05:19 <gpilz> (back and forth about conformance philosophy)
21:07:55 <Tom_Rutt> q+
21:08:22 <BobF> ack tom
21:08:29 <gpilz> Tom> "MAY" be ok - or qualified MUST
21:09:10 <gpilz> Gil> "... if the service detects {foo} and chooses to fault, it MUST generate the {bar} fault"
21:09:30 <Tom_Rutt> but from a testing point of view, the qualified MUST is no different than the MAY, from te point of view of the client
21:09:35 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: 11725 accepted but left open
21:09:53 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue-11766
21:10:00 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11766
21:10:23 <gpilz> Doug> reword things to make it clear that you don't have to update the resource if you don't support the schema of the thing that was passed in
21:10:52 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Issue-11766 accepted but left open
21:11:12 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue-11772
21:11:31 <gpilz> Doug> @language is required (tells you what dialect you are using)
21:11:40 <gpilz> ... this is very much like a filter
21:11:56 <gpilz> ... @language should be optional and default to XPath
21:12:01 <Tom_Rutt> q+
21:12:06 <gpilz> ... is this a "substantive" change?
21:12:12 <BobF> ack tom
21:12:14 <gpilz> Bob> up to the WG to decide
21:12:25 <gpilz> Tom> changing something from mandatory doesn't sound like a break
21:12:37 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Issue-11772 accepted and left open
21:12:56 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue-11776
21:13:07 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11776
21:13:11 <gpilz> Doug> (describes)
21:13:47 <Tom_Rutt> q+
21:14:03 <BobF> ack tom
21:14:27 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Issue-11776 accepted but left open pending more investigation by Ram
21:14:41 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue-11790
21:14:49 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11790
21:14:58 <gpilz> Doug> (describes how we screwed up)
21:15:40 <gpilz> q+
21:17:48 <Tom_Rutt> q+
21:17:52 <gpilz> simplest example of this is
21:17:52 <gpilz> <mex:MetadataSection @Dialect='wsdl:definitions' ...>
21:17:52 <gpilz>     <wsdl:definitions xmlns:wsdl="http://www.w3c....>
21:17:59 <BobF> ack gp
21:19:57 <BobF> ack tom
21:19:57 <gpilz> Gil> (futher explanation above)
21:19:59 <Katy> q+
21:20:04 <gpilz> q+
21:20:51 <BobF> ack katy
21:20:55 <gpilz> Tom> XPath has a work-around for this, but we're not using XPath
21:20:59 <gpilz> ... baffled
21:21:01 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
21:21:30 <gpilz> Katy> 'wsdl:definitions' - the "wsdl" part is shorthand for "http://www.w3c...."
21:21:43 <gpilz> ... the prefix doesn't matter
21:21:50 <Zakim> +Tom_Rutt
21:22:06 <BobF> ack gp
21:22:10 <Yves> s/w3c/w3/
21:23:59 <gpilz> I like <mex:Dialect Type="{nsURI}localPart" ...
21:24:06 <Tom_Rutt> q+
21:24:26 <dug> Possible serialization options, if we do want to change it:
21:24:28 <dug> - <mex:Dialect Type="nsURI/localPart" ...  
21:24:29 <dug> - <mex:Dialect Type="{nsURI}localPart" ...
21:24:31 <dug> - <mex:Dialect TypeNS="nsURI" TypeName="localPart" ...
21:24:42 <BobF> ack tom
21:25:14 <gpilz> Tom> if we don't go from changing it from QName we'll have to use @prefixMapping from one of the WSDM-related specs
21:25:29 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Issue-11790 accepted and left open
21:25:42 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue 11849
21:25:50 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11849
21:27:21 <gpilz> Gil> (describes)
21:27:58 <gpilz> Proposal - replace the first sentence with the following:  "This REQUIRED attribute indicates the type and version of the metadata unit contained in this MetadataSection (e.g. WSDL version 1.1)."
21:28:23 <gpilz> previous: This indicates the type and version of the metadata unit contained in this MetadataSection (e.g., WSDL version 1.1).
21:28:58 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Issue-11849 accepted and resolved with proposed text from: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11849
21:29:10 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue-11850
21:29:18 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11850
21:30:42 <gpilz> Gil> (describes)
21:31:33 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Issue-11850 accpeted and left open pending further investigation by Ram
21:31:34 <dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11865
21:31:42 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue 11865
21:34:13 <Katy> q+
21:34:16 <dug> q+
21:34:59 <BobF> ack katy
21:35:12 <gpilz> Katy> I hadn't thought of this as a problem on the Get
21:35:35 <gpilz> ... 2 issues - (a) Get and (b) Put/Delete
21:35:58 <gpilz> ... only solution I see is Replace or Delete all the documents identified by the Dialect/ID tuple
21:36:11 <Tom_Rutt> q+
21:36:15 <gpilz> ... Get is another matter
21:36:19 <BobF> ack dug
21:36:29 <gpilz> Doug> solution in my mind is what Katy was saying
21:36:57 <gpilz> ... Get and Put contain "complete" set of all metadata matching the Dialect/ID tuple
21:37:12 <gpilz> ... interesting twists around @Content
21:37:33 <gpilz> ... if I ask for everything that can be referenced via EPRs - clearly I might not get the "complete set"
21:38:15 <gpilz> ... we need something that says "if you have multiple sections for the same Dialect/ID/Content triplet, they are all separate parts of 'the same thing' and there are no duplicate sections"
21:38:42 <Tom_Rutt> I am confused, if there are several schema file with the same namespace, and that namespace is used as @Identifier, would every root element in that "combinded schema" across the namespace be allowed to be send in the return?  what if there is a single global element defintions which is a multiple container?
21:38:48 <BobF> ack tom
21:38:53 <gpilz> ... currently there is nothing in the spec that prevents you from returning a Metadata document with duplicate MetadataSections that contain the exact same XML
21:39:10 <gpilz> Tom> I'm confused - when you are talking about multiple schemas with the same targetnamespace
21:39:12 <dug> q+
21:40:37 <dug> q-
21:41:28 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: issue 11850 accepted and left open pending some reasonable proposal
21:42:09 <dug> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11867
21:42:24 <gpilz> TOPIC: Issue-11867
21:42:44 <gpilz> Doug> (describes - editorial)
21:43:21 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: Issue-11867 accepted and resolved with proposal in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11867
21:43:53 <gpilz> TOPIC: CR progression
21:44:10 <gpilz> Bob> text is available for review
21:44:28 <gpilz> ... on home page
21:44:32 <dug> q+
21:44:42 <dug> q-
21:44:43 <gpilz> ... need to work on indicating which features are at risk
21:44:46 <BobF> ack dug
21:44:49 <li> q+
21:45:13 <BobF> ack li
21:45:32 <gpilz> Li> new CR version - is it stable enough to implement?
21:45:47 <gpilz> Bob> only thing that may change is "status of this document" section
21:45:54 <dug> q+
21:46:11 <BobF> ack dug
21:46:30 <gpilz> Doug> if these are the docs we are going to be testing against - we need to know what the namespaces will be so we can use those
21:46:45 <gpilz> Bob> depends on the timing of when we roll out the specs
21:46:54 <gpilz> ... you can use the current namespace for the Feb testing
21:47:31 <gpilz> Doug> I'll update the scenario doc to indicate this
21:47:45 <gpilz> TOPIC: Test Scenarios
21:47:56 <gpilz> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/scenario.html
21:48:05 <gpilz> Bob> I've noticed a few changes going by
21:48:14 <gpilz> ... how are we doing for Feb?
21:48:29 <dug> q+
21:48:34 <gpilz> Ram> I think these are fairly stable and implementable
21:48:41 <BobF> ack dug
21:48:51 <gpilz> Doug> this doc needs to go through more changes - more variations
21:49:03 <gpilz> ... mainline scenarios are there - but we need to add variations
21:49:10 <gpilz> ... missing critical bits of info
21:49:26 <gpilz> ... Eventing and Enum talk about testing *End
21:49:33 <gpilz> ... but how will this be triggered?
21:49:42 <gpilz> ... need to specify in the doc
21:50:10 <gpilz> Ram> as long as the core scenarios are intact we can do the fine tuning later
21:50:30 <Ram> q+
21:50:31 <gpilz> Bob> we're going to test, grind through, find issues (spec, scenarios, test infrastructure)
21:50:40 <gpilz> ... will need to take another whack at testing
21:50:44 <BobF> ack ram
21:51:22 <gpilz> Ram> can we call "freeze" on what we have in the scenario today?
21:51:28 <dug> q+
21:51:32 <gpilz> Bob> plan to test what we have now
21:51:36 <BobF> ack dug
21:51:44 <gpilz> Doug> I'm OK with the idea that we don't have major changes
21:51:58 <gpilz> ... not comfortable with the idea that the scenario won't change
21:52:18 <gpilz> Bob> just want to set expectations about what people should bring to the table in Feb
21:52:38 <gpilz> ... as firm as a marshmallow - but formed
21:52:52 <gpilz> ... need to give devs something to shoot at
21:53:11 <gpilz> Doug> people shouldn't be surprised if additional scenarios/cases are added
21:53:26 <gpilz> Ram> I'm ok with that - as long as we have a stable version to shoot for
21:53:55 <gpilz> TOPIC: post CR
21:54:33 <gpilz> Bob: we need to declare a date that defines how long the CR will last (minimum review period)
21:54:45 <gpilz> ... can't go to PR before that date
21:54:53 <Tom_Rutt> 2+
21:54:58 <Tom_Rutt> q+
21:55:08 <BobF> ack tom
21:55:23 <gpilz> Tom> if we have some of the schema changes it looks like we might have
21:55:42 <gpilz> ... can we progress to PR, even if we change the namespace?
21:55:59 <gpilz> Bob> if we make a "breaking change" (lots of changes are not breaking)
21:56:19 <gpilz> Tom> we can have a new namespace for the PR schema from the CR schema
21:56:30 <gpilz> Bob> you don't necessarily have to change the schema
21:58:04 <gpilz> All> (reviews proposed directions to issues and concludes that we will probably have to change the namespace)
21:58:14 <gpilz> Bob> we may need a 2nd interop
21:58:29 <gpilz> ... April 29th end of review period
22:01:01 <Tom_Rutt> q+
22:01:22 <BobF> act Tom
22:01:23 <Katy> q+
22:01:28 <BobF> ack tom
22:01:28 <dug> q+
22:01:32 <BobF> ack katy
22:02:11 <Tom_Rutt> q+
22:02:16 <BobF> ack dug
22:02:33 <BobF> ack tom
22:02:38 <dug> 60 days for me
22:02:44 <dug> so march
22:03:37 <BobF> march 31
22:03:47 <gpilz> RESOLUTION: end of CR period March 31st, 2011
22:04:07 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
22:04:08 <Zakim> - +44.196.281.aadd
22:04:09 <Zakim> -asoldano
22:04:10 <Zakim> - +1.831.713.aabb
22:04:11 <Zakim> - +1.908.696.aacc
22:04:11 <Zakim> -Bob_Freund
22:04:12 <Zakim> -Doug_Davis
22:04:14 <Zakim> -Yves
22:04:22 <Zakim> -Tom_Rutt
22:04:22 <BobF> rrsagent generate minutes
22:04:23 <Zakim> WS_WSRA()3:30PM has ended
22:04:25 <Zakim> Attendees were Doug_Davis, Tom_Rutt, Bob_Freund, +1.908.696.aaaa, [Microsoft], +1.831.713.aabb, +1.908.696.aacc, +44.196.281.aadd, +39.331.574.aaee, asoldano, Yves
22:04:33 <BobF> rrsagent, generate minutes
22:04:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/01/25-ws-ra-minutes.html BobF
22:16:20 <gpilz> gpilz has left #ws-ra