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

RE: [I18N-WSTF] Teleconference Notes for 7 January 2003

From: Addison Phillips [wM] <aphillips@webmethods.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:53:21 -0800
To: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>, <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PNEHIBAMBMLHDMJDDFLHGEIFGDAA.aphillips@webmethods.com>

Team:

Thank you for a productive and lively call today. Here are my notes, somewhat cleaned up and "clarified"

~Addison

Meeting notes, 7 January
--
Present: Addison (chair, scribe), Kuro (IONA), Kentaroh, Deb, Martin, Tex

Regrets: Takao, Mike
--
Action Items:

1. Martin: will follow up with Russ Rolfe in case MS has any space in Prague for an FTF. This is a low priority item.
2. Team: write up and send to list a "position" on the locale problem (See notes below for what that means). Due prior to next meeting.
3. Deb: send specific comments on WSUS to list.
4. Addison: post tentative calendar of activities for year.

--
Agenda Items:

1. Discussed FTF. May just need to schedule one separately from other activities (e.g. maybe not at an IUC). We agreed to further study the FTF *after* we have a better understanding of upcoming activity. Note that we need at least 8 weeks of advance notice on an FTF, so this needs to happen quickly. It is likely that we will have enough information to decide this at the next meeting.

2. Need to extend the extant use cases to be more complete. Some of the use cases are too skeletal to understand. This is a lower priority item, but contributors of scenarios should take a look over their cases and flesh out if necessary.

3. Discuss if we should we merge language and locale negotiation categories in triage table. General agreement that this should be done.

4. Categories: "best practices" vs. "best problems"? Suggestion that we need to get more coverage for neglected areas, that we need to more "orthogonally" define the triage categories, and that we need to do more research to achieve "total coverage". Also agreed that some of the "best practices/implementation guidelines" items describe well-known or well-understood problems that have concrete solutions and that some merely describe areas where more works needs doing or for which there are not well-understood solutions.

   4a. Discussed the categories themselves. Dissatisfaction with them as is was expressed. They don't cover the requirements areas neatly and there is a lot of crossover. Concern that "implementation guidelines" is an inaccurate title, since these aren't really guidelines.

5. Discussed potential need to be more methodical about finding issues. Maybe look at structure of WS and WS architecture documents. Discussed how to get a more representative collection of use scenarios and whether this should be our next focused activity. Ultimately rejected spending time trying to get "total coverage" in order to focus in a single area (locales: see below).

6. Discussed the fact that WSUS drives requirements. Need to find out root problems, collect requirements, and then pursue solutions. This may include working on other team's Recommendation documents (e.g. SOAP/XMLP, WSDL, WSArch, etc.) or it may include developing our own Recommendation(s) as appropriate.

7. Discussed the idea that we need to make a blueprint from WS Arch document or some other "armiture" to better describe the coverage that WSUS provides.

8. Decided to focus our activities on the language/locale/i18n-context negotiation problem. This was cited as the most pressing and obvious area of difficulty (and of the most interest to the community). By focusing on this activity we can ensure that we make forward progress without getting lost in the vast possibilities that WS provides.

9. In order to proceed, decided that we need to establish the requirements in this area. Deb, Addison, others volunteered to produce "point of view" (POV) documents that establish the problem domain and suggest solutions. By doing this we hope to identify the "commonality" amoung the various usage scenarios and define our activities. Agreed that we would each attempt to produce our POV as far in advance of our next meeting (21 january) as possible.

--


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-ws-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-i18n-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Addison Phillips [wM]
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 11:26 AM
> To: public-i18n-ws@w3.org
> Subject: [I18N-WSTF] Reminder: Teleconference TOMORROW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W3C-I18N-WG Web Services TF teleconference [WSTF]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> Bridge   : +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim) with conference code 4186 
> (spells "I18N")
> Duration : 60 minutes
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> SCHEDULE CHANGED FOR NEW YEAR!!!
> Day      : Tuesday
> Dates    : 7, 21 January & 4, 18 February
> Start    : 23:00 GMT, 18:00 Eastern, 15:00 Pacific, 08:00 Tokyo 
> (next day!)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> Zakim information    : http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim
> Zakim bridge monitor : http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/Zakim.html
> Zakim IRC bot        : http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html
> Zakim Calendar entry : 
http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#s_731
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

REMINDER: the next scheduled teleconference for the WSTF is tomorrow. If you have not used the W3C teleconference bridge previously, please review the links above for instructions (it's very easy).

SUMMARY: This is our first meeting of the new year. We have one major activity this time: triaging the Usage Scenarios and deciding on activities to pursue as a result.

I have kept the number of reserved slots at 9 because we picked up a member (welcome Debasish Banerjee).

Agenda for 17 December meeting
=============================
    o Discuss Agenda.
    o Discuss Action Items.
    o Discuss next FTF meeting. Tentatively at IUC23 in Prague.
    o Discussion: triage of Usage Scenarios and activities to pursue

Pending Action Items
====================
    * Organize calendar of activities [Addison]... pending
    * Call for Use Cases based on draft of USWD [Addison]... complete
    * Review and approve Working Draft for public review [group]... complete
    * Triage of Usage Scenarios draft [Addison]... complete

Documents
=============================
Usage Scenarios can be reviewed here: http://www.w3.org/International/ws/ws-i18n-scenarios-edit
Triage can be reviewed here: http://www.w3.org/International/ws/ws-i18n-scenarios-edit/Overview.html#class


Talk to you then!

Best Regards,

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
webMethods, Inc.

+1 408.962.5487  mailto:aphillips@webmethods.com
-------------------------------------------
Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature.

Chair, W3C I18N WG Web Services Task Force
http://www.w3.org/International/ws
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2003 20:53:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:12:51 GMT