See also: IRC log
for Jan 26, 2006
Glen, Bijan, Kendal not in attendance.
3. Review of Action items [.1]. PENDING 2005-07-21: Pauld to write a proposal for a working group report for requirements for schema evolution following closure of LC124 PENDING 2005-10-20: Kendall to contact DAWG to ask for contribution to test suite, due 2005-10-27. DONE [.3] 2005-11-10: Marsh to take the IRI issue to the CG, due 2005-11-16. SUPERCEDED 2005-01-05: Jacek to detail (e.g. in a list) what constraints of the component model are not enforced by the WSDL ontology. PENDING 2005-01-05: Glen to write an outline for a test service and send it to the list. DONE 2006-01-26: Arthur to make a proposal for CR005. DONE [.4] 2006-01-26: Roberto to look into CR007 Assertion required for property
. PENDING 2006-02-02: Bijan to run the partitioning analysis on ontology PENDING 2006-02-02: Jonathan to close issue 285 in the issues list. Current Editorial Action Items PENDING 2006-01-26: JacekK to add an example to the RDF Mapping. PENDING 2006-01-26: Asir to make a proposal (fix!) CR008 - SOAP 1.1 Binding: example. PENDING 2006-02-02: Jacek to implement resolution for issue 283. 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/cr-issues/actions_owner.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-cg/2006Jan/0001.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Feb/0016.html
Face 2 face coming up Feb 27-28 in Cannes - Please register if you haven't
Draft adgenda will be available and fleshed out soon
WS-Addressing WSDL Binding LC review - Uses WSDL, please review before F2F
looking for volunteers....
Arthur and Tom volunteer
<Jonathan> ACTION: Arthur and Tom to do an initial review of the WS-Addressing WSDL Binding [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
Assertion review status: Jonathan to convert review assignments to action items
See assignments here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jan/0067.html
<Jonathan> More current assignments: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/assert-yourself.html
<Jonathan> ACTION: Arthur to complete assertion assigment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
<Jonathan> ACTION: Roberto to complete assertion assigment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
<Jonathan> ACTION: Glen to complete assertion assigment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
<hugo> It seems that I forgot to assert myself
<Jonathan> ACTION: Jonathan to complete assertion assigment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
<Jonathan> ACTION: JJM to complete assertion assigment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
<Jonathan> ACTION: Amy to complete assertion assigment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action07]
<Jonathan> ACTION: Umit to complete assertion assigment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action08]
<Jonathan> ACTION: Charlton to complete assertion assigment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action09]
Arthur: Reviewers, when you add a new assertion, use the number range assigned to you
discussion on how reviewers should assign numbers..
<scribe> Chair: Thanks Arthur for organizing the assertion review
<charlton> I should have my review completed before next week's conf call time
Hugo found a problem in his review: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Feb/0021.html
<Jonathan> SPARQL review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Feb/0021.html
<Arthur> summary of assertion ids - the text prefix is freeform and descriptive, the numeric suffix is unique globally
Hugo: [describes the problem detailed in his mail]
<Arthur> e.g. Jonathan would use Binding-1209001 for a Binding assertion in Part 1, Section 2.9
Hugo: claimed to use the IRI/URI
style, but they break the rules
... they allow a maxoccurs="unbounded" and we restrict the IRI style to maxOccurs="1" to prevent confusion
<hugo> here are the culprits for SPARQL:
<hugo> <xs:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name="default-graph-uri" type="xs:anyURI"/>
<hugo> <xs:element minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" name="named-graph-uri" type="xs:anyURI"/>
Arthur: Where is the WSDL in the SPARQL spec?
Hugo: should be in the spec throughout i.e. section 2.1
Jonathan: They want to describe
something that we don't allow. - Should we fix this?
... who's problem is it? Ours or theirs?
Jacek, Arthur: ours
Hugo: [muses on a solution while explaining the problem further]
Jonathan: Can we just remove the
restriction to maxOccurs?
... If we decide this is our problem, we can file a CR and fix it. Do we want to do this?
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to raise the CR issue on behalf of SPARQL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action10]
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to keep the SPARQL group informed about this issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action11]
Hugo: Second issue - why do we
restrict the top level element QName to be the same as the
... A simple change of the element name in SPARQL would fix their problem with respect to WSDL 2.0 as it stands
Jonathan: Hugo should provide the group with the easy rename fix so we don't have to change anything
<Jonathan> ACTION: Forward Hugo's two remaining comments to SPARQL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action12]
Jonathan: Anyone else want to review SPARQL before we declare WSDL's sanity check complete?
Arthur: Schedule question - are they going to implement WSDL 2.0?
Jonathan: doesn't seem like
... Can we declare our sanity check complete?
<Jonathan> ACTION 12= Jonathan to forward Hugo''s two remaining comments to SPARQL, ask them for their WSDL and sample messages for our test suite.
Hugo: We remove XML 1.1 support
in early 2005. Disappointed because he and others thought that
what WSDL had done was cool and worked.
... wanted to capture this work
... Request to publish this as a working group note
Roberto: looks like some of the parts are new
Hugo: Yes, because the spec was wrong/changed
Roberto: Motivation for this work?
Hugo: Didn't want it to be lost.
Arthur: notices some mistakes in the document concerning int/integer
Hugo: Yes, Roberto pointed this out too
Arthur: Doesn't get the usefullness of the doc
Jonathan: the approach wasn't
practical, uncomfortable publishing it
... Can't we publish this some other way not via the working group?
Hugo: Yes, I have considered this. But the core of this comes from the WG
Jonathan: Shuold we publish this as WG note?
Arthur: not comfortable with document as is
Jonathan: it defines a namespace in the w3c domain, which we can't publish
Hugo: No objection to me taking this somewhere else it sounds like
Arthur: how about XML Schema WG?
discussion on how/where Hugo might want to publish the note
Jonathan: cancel telcon next both
RDF TF and regular WG
... Jan 23, 2006 conference call cancelled
... Heartbeat publication due - we should republish the CR document
Review of F2F agenda items
Jonathan: Anything else for agenda?
Arthur: Demo of Woden!
Jonathan: Since these are working group issues, wanted to run by the group
sumamry of issues closed - 3 of them
Jonathan: Does anyone object to closing the issues per the TF?
Arthur explains the issue and the a solution
general support for "R2", build in all the basic Schema types
Jonathan: Any objections? No
RESOLUTION: Close CR005 - by building in the XML Schema basic types ("R2" in Arthur proposal)
Arthur: should I use MUST?
answer - Yes