See also: IRC log
<KevinL> approval of minutes. there are a few corrections from Arthur and Jean-jaques
no other corrections, minutes approved.
no objection to approval of F2F minutes either
? 2005-06-16: Amy to provide test cases for MEPs not described in Part 2, due 2005-07. DONE 2005-07-14: Roberto find comments Amy proposed to schema and added them DONE [.2] 2005-07-14: Marsh to send a mail flushing out implementations. DONE [.3] 2005-07-20: Marsh to respond to all comments. DONE FTF 2005-07-20: Arthur to investigate LC91/96 and Noah's proposed rewording DONE [.4] 2005-07-20: Marsh to reply to Noah about LC91(?) saying that our spec already covers his concern ? 2005-07-20: dorchard to respond to commenter on keeping mustUnderstand ? 2005-07-21: pauld to write a proposal for a working group report for requirements for schema evolution following closure of LC124 DONE [.5] 2005-07-21: amy to withdraw Tibco's participation from the formal objection on the ONR DONE [.10] 2005-07-21: arthur to review the status of IBM's formal objection to the ONR DONE [.6] 2005-07-21: jonathan to review the status of Microsoft's formal objection to the ONR Current Editorial Action Items DONE 2005-07-20: Editors to incorporate amended proposal from Jonathan as regards LC75f resolution (attributes for RPC). DONE [.9] 2005-07-20: Part two editors to incorporate text for section on security considerations, as approved DONE [.9] 2005-07-20: editors to clarify that setting wsoap:action sets the soap action property on all messages in operation. DONE [.8] 2005-07-20: editors to incorporate the proposed text from Noah for LC96 into section 4.2 of part one. DONE [.7] 2005-07-20: editors to replace "with some additional restrictions" in section 3.1.1 by "with the differences defined in this and the following section." DONE [.9] 2005-07-21: Editors of Part 2 to implement 1a (error if mustUnderstand conflicts with schema def) ? 2005-07-21: amy to write abstract for alt schema languages and to do some cleanup under jonathan's direction ? 2005-07-21: editors of note to add references to wsdl documents (RNG, etc.) ? 2005-07-21: Arthur to add stable identifiers for each assertion, due 2005-09-01. [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jul/0111.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jul/0111.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005Jul/0011 .html [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jul/0126.html [.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jul/0139.html [.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Jul/0020.html [.8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Jul/0021.html [.9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jul/0148.html [.10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jul/0142.html
<hugo> it's at: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/07/objections.html
igor and gudge has retired from the group, Asir has rejoined
TIBCO has approval for hosting the Sept F2F in bayarea, pending for availability of facility
Amy: we have a room.
... will be in Palo Alto
<Marsh> Prefs: start of week, Tues/Wed if possible.
Nov 9 F2F in Tokyo
scribe: cohosted with ws-a again
no telecon in august, next one in sept 1
ws-a notational convention calls out extensions from psudeo syntax
scribe: Arthur is working on it, ideally done before the CL pub
<Tomj> I think it is a good idea. Can we leave some extensibility in if they help make things clearer?
scribe: we should do the same thing
tomj: sounds like a good idea
sanjiva: we cann't do that. for example, we need to show bindings
Umit: we shouldn't change anything in WSDL. tell ws-a that in certain points we need to show extensibility
Jonathan: we will drop it now,
may come back to it in Sept
... there are questions about wsdl:import. sounds indicating inconsistent b/t primer and core?
arthur: I have answered the question in email to the person. the primer is clear
Jonathan: should we leave Primer in LC while others doc goes to CR in sept? since primer has undergone lot of changes since last LC
Jacck: I like this way of thinking.
Jonathan: examples of the primer should be put in our test suite
Paul: the versioning section has a number of examples
Kevin: most examples in primer are incomplete, just focusing on a particular section
arthur: we will have complete examples in the test backet, validate it and align the primer with it
jonathan: what kind of extra validation will be needed for the primer
Kevin: encourage the group to review the primer. Doubt that CR or LC will make any difference for primer
Jonathan: Now to me it's nice to keep our docs in sync. I would suggest we make all the doc CR
JacekK: are you saying you wanted to keep primer in LC now and later promote it to PR directly
Umit: we should have one criteria for all the doc
<sanjiva> +1 for making the doc be a CR rather than an LC
Arthur: is there anyway somebody will implement the primer?
+1 for keep all docs in sync,
Jonathan: Any objection to move primer to CR along with other docs?
Umit: to encourage the group to pay serious attention to the primer. LC may make it easier to change the primer
Jonathan: My suggestion is still to keep in sept 19 as the end date of Primer, along with the other docs.
no objections. recorded as a consensus of the group
LC Publication date
Huge: hopefully end of next week, with help of Arthur
Jonathan: xpointer schema
... when should we register our scheme?
Hugo: don't think we need to do anything
Jonathan: need to fig out if we can change our schema once it's registered
<Tomj> Macromedia has no position on the RDF mapping and is willing to drop it from the list of deliverables if necessary
it's not clear to me that the RDF mapping is able to advance to CR in a few month, maybe in the spring, say March
Bijan apologied for blocking this. one suggestion is to pass the pen to Jacek
other idea is to pull it out from the recommendation track
scribe: do the group feel we will be able to make it through the recommendation track?
Arthur: IBM has team doing RDF mapping. but we believe it should be done by OWL people. If nobody wants to work on it, IBM is ok to drop it
Jacek: I would like to have the pen passed to me
Jacek: I don't have the current status of the doc since Bijan forgot to send me the attachment
I will pick up where Bijan has left. we should be able to have a complete draft in August. it's still possible to CR in a few months
Jonathan: I am appointing Jacek
as the editor of the RDF mapping. Let's check the progress in
... what does the group think to take the RDF draft directly to CR without going the LC step?
Hugo: the charter calls for RDF
mapping, I don't think we really need OWL-S
... since the group doesn't have the expertise, we can not be forced to deliver this doc (Scribe not sure he got Hugo's point right)
<pauld> me s/dog/DAWG/
Umit: should we have a deadline for resolving this issue?
Jonathan: if we don't have a
draft to look at in our Sept F2F, we should pressure very hard
to drop it.
... Jacek, you see the frustration of the group, will you be able to make it?
Jacek: I will try. Will let the group know if I cann't make it
Arthur: want to clarify that we agree RDF mapping should not be biased to any language
some more discussion on xpointer register, jonathan suggest we discuss it as a LC comments later
TomJ: what's the date for LC publication?
Jonathan: Hugo estimated next Wednesday