See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Roberto
No objections, minutes are approved.
? 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.
? 2005-12-08: Amy to propose text warning about the knots one
can tie oneself up in when writing an extension.
DONE [.3] 2005-12-08: Arthur to update the schema to allow extensibility
of import/include.
DONE [.4] 2005-12-08: Marsh will respond.
Current Editorial Action Items
? [.5] 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/cr-issues/actions_owner.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Dec/0023.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Dec/0020.html
[.5]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/assert-yourself.html
will leave the 2005-07-21 action to Arthur open
Tony is the new co-chair
No time zone changes
Jan 25-26 telethon meeting scheduled
<GlenD> no no
Feb meeting in Cannes
TP day content review
Marsh: first proposal was on formal methods
<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to contact XQuery and chairs re formal methods [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/05-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
<GlenD> +1 for Chad lightning talk :)
Marsh: chad talk done
already
... "MEPs or Mess" seems very specific for a plenary day
... typography talk
<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to work on typography abstract [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/05-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
Marsh: RDF mapping for everything suggested by Jacek
<Marsh> Marsh: ACTION: Ask Jacek to propose talk to program committee.
Marsh: if we go to CR tomorrow,
we should start thinking about an interop event
... would the technical plenary be a good place to do some
interop work?
... other than the opportunity to meet with other groups, there
is nothing special about the plenary
Arthur: Woden released some
milestones, it can do useful interop if there are other
implementations
... we could also look at other groups who are doing WSDL
extensions and have a review session for them
Marsh: what's the ideal time to do an interop event from Woden's pov?
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to check Woden's schedule and report back [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/05-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Marsh: sounds like the plenary would be a bit early for an interop event
Marsh: document will be published
tomorrow
... f&p will be marked at risk
TomJ: are minutes from the meeting with the director available?
Marsh: don't know, can check if
they are member-available
... (summarizes the meeting)
... only item that generated much discussion was Dan Connelly's
issue on identifiers
... the director didn't ask to go further on fragment
identifiers
... discussed the different options on f&p
... the director considered that the fact that f&p wasn't
marked at risk meant the WG had overcome its differences
... Jonathan objected that at risk is a process thing, it's not
clear that they can be excised from the document without going
back
... although they are a large part of the spec, there are not
many cross-dependencies on f&p
... but nobody has done the exercise of trying to excise
them
... Jonathan also encouraged TBL to contact other
objectors
... then there was another call in the afternoon
... optimal outcome would have been a firm decision; instead,
it postpones the resolution to the end of CR
... also compositors were turned down for CR, but it's still
possible that they might be revived if f&p is moved to a
separate spec
... after CR publication, we enter a new phase, processing CR
issues
... recommends the WG be conservative in changing things
... to avoid destabilizing implementations and going back to
Last Call
Marsh: action is still open
... Issue CR003
... commenter complains about the use of a X-something media
type
... which is discouraged by RFC4288
Arthur: what's the alternative?
Marsh: removing support for the URL encoded media type?
Arthur: but that's what browsers generate!
Marsh: don't know if there is a standard alternative for it
<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to ask about CR003 alternatives. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/05-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
Marsh: Jacek proposed to closing it with no action
RESOLUTION: issue 106 closed with no action
Marsh: Jacek proposed to close it with no action
<JacekK> close with action done in the past
<JacekK> close by agreeing with the commenter
RESOLUTION: issue 282 closed with previous action
<Marsh> ACTION: JacekK to detail (e.g. in a list) what constraints of the component model are not enforced by the WSDL ontology [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/05-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
Marsh: editorial issue, solution already incorporated
RESOLUTION: issue 285 closed
Marsh: postpone it until we get more info on it
Marsh: what are the limits?
couldn't we just use the URI for the section of the spec that
contains the definition in question instead?
... will discuss it with Jacek
<JacekK> I'll have to think about it
<JacekK> it also ties in with what URIs we choose in the end for our things
<charlton> cr88: the RDF mapping currently uses the URI
<charlton> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/wsdl-rdf#SOAPMessageExchangePattern to point
<charlton> to the concept of a SOAP 1.2 message exchange pattern; this URI is
<charlton> WSDL-specific, we should probably request the XMLP WG to coin a URI for
<charlton> us because this concept is clearly in their scope.
<JacekK> the idea that we could use the #frag references to the spec text is still open
<JacekK> but we should at least confirm with XMLP that we can do that
Marsh: no proposal, will skip the issue
<JacekK> can't say much about this, have to think about it, also ties in with the question of using #frag references to spec text
Marsh: anything we can do to move CR testing forward?
Arthur: encourage people to
create test cases
... post new test cases to the public or comments lists
test case coverage report: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/test-suite-coverage-summary.xml?content-type=text/xml
<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to add link to test suite from home page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/05-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
Glen: if a test case uses an
extension, don't I need a mini-spec in English for it?
... the test suite must be able to express test-specific
semantics
... e.g. a test-only binding
Arthur: that's a different kind of test, a message test, not a document test
Glen: also need a out-of-band description of preconditions ("you must understand this extension", or "must not")
Arthur: for testing, we need some standard test services we can interact with
Paul: upcoming interop event for addressing, can we coordinate with them?
Marsh: we could define say 10 canonical services and run interop tests against them
<scribe> ACTION: Glen to write an outline for a test service and send it to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/05-ws-desc-minutes.html#action07]
Glen: we should ping soapbuilders to find out about planned implementations
Marsh: having a prototype of
these services at the plenary would help
... will cancel telcons if we don't have enough agenda
items