See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: pauld
minutes from last week approved
pauld: AI for versioning in PVS, paul feels deeply embarrassed
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: Marsh to take the IRI issue to the CG, due 2005-11-16. DONE [.3] 2005-12-08: Amy to propose text warning about the knots one can tie oneself up in when writing an extension. ? 2005-01-05: Jacek to detail (e.g. in a list) what constraints of the component model are not enforced by the WSDL ontology. ? 2005-01-05: Glen to write an outline for a test service and send it to the list. DONE 2006-01-12: Arthur to come up with an allocation for reviewing assertions. DONE 2006-01-12: Marsh to send CR announcement to SOAPBuilders. DONE [.4] 2006-01-12: Hugo to find uses of x-www... media types in W3C Recs. DONE [.6] 2006-01-12: Jacek to investigate with SWDBP WG the status of part-whole ontology. DONE [.5] 2006-01-12: JacekK to contact XMLP WG on blessing http://www.w3.org/2005/10/wsdl- rdf#SOAPMessageExchangePattern to point. 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/2006Jan/0046.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jan/0028.html [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jan/0051.html [.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jan/0052.html
Arthur: expounds on assertions
task, assertions go beyond constraints imposed by our schema.
looking for one test case which voilates each assertion
... working through the document/table, I've assigned identifiers for each assertion
... would like people to review the review table - assignment of sections to WG members
<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jan/0059.html
<horse-trading of who gets which assertion>
Arthur: needs doing ahead of exiting CR, what's our schedule for exiting CR?
Jonathan: entirely depends upon implementations
Arthur: suggest we aim for Cannes
Jonathan: will backup Sanjiva,
Charlton to backup DaveO
... encourages WG to look at this sooner than later
Jonathan: hotel registration extended
Jonanthan: three items accepted
for the TP day, Chad (possiblyx2) and the abstract on
... Arthur running a panel on formal methods
Jonathan: where next after
Cannes? East Coast is next in our rotation. Unclear on
... Mark Nottingham is leaving BEA and resigning as WS-Addressing Chair ..
... maybe our May meeting could be combined with an interop event for CR testing
Hugo: rechartering - the working group is in the Last Chance saloon, unless things change drastically, the team is only willing to extend resources for one year, subject to objection from the AC of course
Jonathan: of course closing the group would leave the CR documents in dormant mode which could be recreated at a later date.
Hugo: if progress is good, and we're in PR, then things may change
Tom: we're not done in a year, then it's over, we're done for!
Jonathan: notes there's a chicken and egg, even with addressing which has significant interest, finding implementations within the CR time frame is problematic
Hugo: we want the working group
to succeed, so giving the WG a year to get out of CR is
... has heard strong pushback from at least one of the members of this WG against downgrading work on the RDF mapping
Jonathan: to be clear push back is against delviering RDF mapping as a rec-track document, not stopping work
Jacek: working group could be kept going for longer to complete the RDF mapping
TonyR: doesn't RDF mapping not reaching PR prevents us going to Rec with the main documents?
Hugo: only if there was a
dependency from the core documents to the RDF mapping, I don't
think there is such a dependecny, so no
... however our contract with the AC is to deliver the RDF mapping
Jonathan: reconsidering how to manage "good standing" in the face of working group members not interested in working on the RDF mapping
Jacek: suggests an RDF mapping TF
Jonathan: could alternate with the main WG in this slot as our workload lessens during CR
Charlton: alternating seems fine
Jonathan: prefers to be more
ad-hoc than one-week-on-one-week-off as issues may arrise as a
result of implementation experience
... let's form an RDF task force, I'm happy to chair, starting next week
... everyone is invited to join
... given we'll be working without a charter, that seems fine
... does anyone have feedback on the charter renewal they'd like to have on the record now?
Hugo: will be presenting this plan to the WS-CG next week. Message to the WG is to start CR testing and make progress!
<Jonathan> Authors of extensibility elements which may manifest as properties of
<Jonathan> the <comp>Description</comp> component should be alert to the impact of
<Jonathan> imports on their extensions, or their extensions on imports. It is not
<Jonathan> possible, within the component model, to define extensions which have
<Jonathan> an effective scope equal to the scope of a containing file. Extensions
<Jonathan> which modify the behavior of the components contained in a description
<Jonathan> may therefore unexpectedly modify the behavior of components in
<Jonathan> imported descriptions as well, unless proper care is taken. Users of
<Jonathan> such extension elements should also be aware of the potential pitfalls.
RESOLUTION: close CR002 with Amy's proposal
Tom: surprised by the analysis
Jonathan: Hugo's analysis should provide sufficient reason
RESOLUTION: CR003 is closed with no action based on Hugo's analysis
Jonathan: appInfo for WSDL?
Jacek: we have general extensibility to provide such extensibility.
Jonathan: and our component model can handle such extensions
Arthur: agrees with Jacek. Schema content model isn't open like WSDL, that's why they provide appInfo
Jonathan: the are more constrained
Arthur: anyone know of using appInfo in schema?
Jonathan: we use it
Roberto: JAXB provides binding
information in appInfo
... could be done with general extensibility
Jonathan: does the constraint add value?
Umit, Roberto: no, what possible value could it add?
RESOLUTION: close CR004 with no action
builtin schema types
Arthur: has responded - suggests including predefined types in the component model, either a full set by default, or the smaller set we reference
Jonathan: does it make comparing two component models?
Arthur: we don't define
equivalence of component models, just components
... top level components may be compared to detect confilicts following includes, done recursively below that
... we don't comapre description components, the rule to spell out which types are defaulted would solve the equivalence problem
Umit: clarification - they're all, always there?
Arthur: yes, there's about 20-30
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to make a proposal for CR005 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
RESOLUTION: CR006 closed as editorial, Arthur already fixed
<scribe> ACTION: Roberto to look into CR007 Assertion required for property <constraint> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
RESOLUTION: closed with action for Asir to make a proposal
<scribe> ACTION: Asir to make a proposal for CR008 - SOAP 1.1 Binding: example [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Jonathan: RDF mapping issues to
be discussed next week
... use the next 30 mins to work on your implementations ;-)