See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: JacekK
Jonathan_Marsh: the minutes are
raw and don't contain full WS-A attendance, nor do they contain
any decisions
... do we need to approve them?
... do we need a more polished form of these?
... Nov9 minutes left as-is
Jonathan_Marsh: some corrections done and posted
minutes approved (for Nov 17)
Review of Action items [.1].
? 2005-07-21: pauld to write a proposal for a working group
report for requirements for schema evolution
following closure of LC124
? 2005-10-20: Kendall to contact DAWG to ask for contribution to
test suite, due 2005-10-27.
? 2005-11-10: Hugo will start adding assertions to Part 2.
? 2005-11-10: Marsh to take the IRI issue to the CG, due
2005-11-16.
DONE 2005-11-11: Arthur to construct instructions sheet, and assign
sections for each member of the group to insert
assertion markup, due 2005-11-16.
DONE 2005-11-17: Arthur to work on the remaining editorial
action items, due 2005-11-18.
DONE 2005-11-17: Sanjiva to propose a new table format, due
2005-11-18.
DONE 2005-11-17: Marsh to add link to test coverage page from our
web site, due 2005-11-18.
DONE 2005-11-17: Marsh to debug/improve test coverage page,
due 2005-11-18.
DONE 2005-11-17: Arthur to modify the style sheets to eliminate
the assertions table from the CR drafts, due
2005-11-18.
Current Editorial Action Items
? 2005-07-21: Arthur to add stable identifiers for each
assertion, due 2005-09-26.
Note: Editorial AIs associated with LC issues recorded at [.2].
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/actions_owner.html
<Arthur> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/assert-yourself.html
Jonathan_Marsh: Jan long-telcon
meeting not sent to w3 calendar yet, but that will happen
soon
... following meeting scheduled for Cannes, no new info
... propose to cancel 12/22 and 12/29 telcons
... and most likely also canceling 12/15, will see
tomorrow
... we have a CR call tomorrow
Kevin: how many objections do we have?
Jonathan_Marsh: 2 formal
objections, a number of comments that we didn't fulfill
... formal objections: against f&p; against f&p without
compositors
... the not-accepted comments are usually the WG against the
commentor who is in minority
... that is 8 comments remaining
... the director will consider and rule on the formal
objections tomorrow
... I sent a list of requirements that we gathered earlier and
haven't fulfilled, mostly should-level requirements
... there's only one MUST requirement that's a little funny
Jonathan_Marsh: no CR issues list
started yet, but identifiers already running
... cr001 - a summary of all the SHOULD suggestions
Arthur: it would be validation
warning-level things, but we shouldn't give them new
identifiers
... the implementors give us the markup for assertions, the
first priority is the MUST requirements, we shouldn't spend
much work identifying the SHOULDs
... I'd recommend just an attribute on an assertion to indicate
what is required and what not
RESOLUTION: CR001 accepted as a good suggestion, will start the CR issues list
Jonathan_Marsh: the issue is spec inconsistency, some parts (text) say extensions are allowed, other say otherwise (schema)
amy: my question is what the rules for producing components are in light of extensions on imports and includes
alewis: I'm not sure we should
have the broad applicability of these extensions
... my issue is not specific to imports and includes
... we could get ourselves in a big tangle with our component
model
... I'd like to have some more discussion about the extensions
to Description
Arthur: our spec is silent on
extensions in general, we don't restrict what they do
... we allow extensions to do whatever they will, it's up to
the extension designer to do it sensibly
... we might want to err in the direction of openness
Jonathan_Marsh: it looks like a
question of a baby in the bath water
... it seems we turned down Arthur's limitations on
extensibility
alewis: you really can't turn off
extensions, we'd get slapped
... but we may want to point out that one might get oneself in
trouble unless they are careful designing these
extensions
... I think all agree that we could allow import and include
extensions in the schema
... but we might want to take a hard look and produce a
warning
<Jonathan_Marsh> ACTION: Amy to propose text warning about the knots one can tie oneself up in when writing an extension. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/08-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
Arthur: section 6 would be a good home for this text
Jonathan_Marsh: it seems nobody thinks we should forbid extensibility of import/include
PARTIAL RESOLUTION: import/include will allow extensibility (make schema agree with spec)
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to update the schema to allow extensibility of import/include [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/08-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
ACTION 2=Arthur to update the schema to allow extensibility of import/include (after CR publication)
hugo: it's better to hold off
changes to the spec until we've published
... discussion about whether this should be folded into the CR
version
Jonathan_Marsh: let's put this change in the spec now, I'll take the heat if this sparks trouble
ACTION 2=Arthur to update the schema to allow extensibility of import/include
hugo: we need to record that we've accepted and fixed this
<Jonathan_Marsh> ACTION: Marsh will respond [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/08-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
hugo: and I need to know about it when the change happens
ACTION 3=Marsh will respond to CR002 issue raiser
Jonathan_Marsh: our schemes are
entered in there, only the person who enters the scheme can
update it so I have most of them except for the one entered by
Henry earlier
... just FYI, basically
Arthur: woden project just released 2nd milestone, reading documents, constructing and querying component model etc.
Jonathan_Marsh: is there any functionality that's not implemented?
Arthur: it's types and interface
so far, it seems
... it's a parser, validator, component model
... all validation rules are going to take a while
Jonathan_Marsh: based on progress so far, when do you think you'd reach full WSDL functionality?
Arthur: Q1 next year, I'd
say
... it is open source, contributors welcome
JacekK: rdf mapping issues will
be submitted soon
... they will form RDF mapping agenda items
... haven't heard from Bijan about mapping tables
... but may have more time in January so that shouldn't be so
much of a problem
... should have substantially more complete draft by next
f2f
hugo: I'm hopeful that we might be publishing next week
Jonathan_Marsh: we may be canceling the telcon, unless there's something we can usefully do