W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-ws@w3.org > February 2003

[WSTF] Teleconference Meeting Notes

From: Addison Phillips [wM] <aphillips@webmethods.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:26:01 -0800
To: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>, <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PNEHIBAMBMLHDMJDDFLHAEJIGGAA.aphillips@webmethods.com>

Present: Tex, Martin, Kentaroh, Deb, Addison (chair, scribe)
> 
> Action Items for today:
> > -Addison to send link to Requirements template again [to do this week]
> > -Deb to write initial requirements for next meeting. [to do]
> > -Mike/Deb: Work on complex transaction Usage Scenarios [Not started. Deb to call on Mike]
> > -Tex: to look at WSDL for further usage scenarios [to do]
> > -AP: will add link to membership on main page [to do]
> > -KN: will number the scenarios separate from the automatic 
> index number [DONE]
> > -AP: will schedule next bridge dates (Mar/Apr). [DONE]


Note: we may need to reschedule the teleconference for the 25 March, since the date conflicts with IUC23
 
a) Reviewed last week's meeting. The team did discuss error messages in general, but this conversation does not require specific review.

b) Deb: Do we agree about the contents of an i18n context? In our discussion we decided that our immediate need is to create and consider usage scenarios that drive the requirements for this. In addition, we can go from requirements to scenarios (that is, create scenarios that illustrate what we feel the requirements are).

c) We also discussed the need for WSArch to consider higher level requirements for contextual exchange and define the mechanisms. This discussion included further review of our own action plan. We need to return to gathering Usage Scenarios and developing Requirements. Focus needs to be put on developing these in a structured way so that they form "packets" of requirements and scenarios that can be targetted to different groups such as WSDL, SOAP, etc.

d) Discussion: the W3C is a little slow in implementing basic standards. How do we get i18n issues considered in the adoption of recommendations? Some of us felt that the current methodology is not fast at developing basic "foundational" standards. We discussed that there is a tendency for complex specs (which need a larger investment from I18N-WSTF in evaluating than compared to simple or basic standards) to develop along lines of interest to the other WS work groups.

e) Tex: the W3C could pay more attention to staffing up (i18n WG) to support this work.

f) Addison: [action] Send integration patterns whitepaper link. Check ULocale paper link.

g) Addison: [action] to do some patterns usage scenarios

h) Martin/Addison: [action] mail Deb Mike's email address so that he can follow up on transaction scenarios
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 17:26:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:12:52 GMT