See also: IRC log
<scribe> SCRIBE: gpilz
Review of Action items [.1]. ? 2006-09-21: Jonathan to check periodically that SPARQL has added schemaLocation. ? 2007-01-04: Paul to report back on which test cases in the WSDL test suite fail the basic patterns, with suggestions on how to address the issues. DONE [.3] 2007-04-21: Charlton to look at resolution of WSDL 1.1 element identifiers resolutions. DONE [.2] 2007-04-19: Jonathan to respond to issue 4458. Current Editorial Action Items ? 2007-03-15: Philippe to update the namespace documents upon PR pub. DONE 2007-04-19: Philippe to double check http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Mar/0072.html DONE 2007-04-19: Philippe to fix the references in all three docs. [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2007Apr/0001.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2007Apr/0011.html
Jonathan: some editorial action items for Phillipe
Phillipe: All of them are closed
Jonathan: Lets talk about "wsdl20" token for the dated versions of the schemas
Phillipe: What do people want?
Jonathan: I thought the dated versions were supposed to be stable?
Phillipe: I'm not sure
Jonathan: It seems strange to hacve '20' in the dated versions but not the latest versions . . .
Tony: I don't like the 'wsdl20'; I don't mind 'wsdl2'
Phillipe: Lets drop '20' or '2'
... Just 'wsdl'
Jonathan: That would be great
Tony: That would be consistent as well
RESOLUTION: Phillipe to add the above to existing action item
Phillipe: (requests some clarification)
Jonathan: (describes bug)
... It's not clear to me how critical this is going to be?
Phillipe: Updating the spec is the easy part; we'd have to update all the tests as well.
Tony: I can see someone doing this for a test but not in real life
All: (back and forth on details - is this runtime behavior or something that should be described?)
Jonathan: I'm not hearing anybody who thinks this is obviously necessary
Tony: If its going to hold things up, sorry, its too late
Jonathan: Yeah, but you could make the case that this is really important
Phillipe: Tell me again what breaks if we don't have this?
Jonathan: I'm not sure . .
... I don't there's anything in WSDL or anywhere else that tells you you should fault if you get a 201 back instead of a 200
Tony: You may get a fault you hadn't thought of
Jonathan: We could just fall back on HTTP and consider it a fault if you get a 4xx
Phillipe: We have an in/out operation, what do we expect currently?
All: (not sure)
Phillipe: That's my point. If we're going to get into this, we'll end up describing everything about the HTTP layer
Jean-Jacques: you can have faults
without bodies and you need a way to differentiate faults from
... It seems that we don't have enough reasoning as to why we would need this feature . . .
Jonathan: Is it worth going back to PR?
Tony: This will be the last time we could add this for quite a while
All: (discussion of schedule impacts)
RESOLUTION: close with no action
RESOLUTION: accept proposal
RESOLUTION: accept proposal
Jonathan: (summary - no joy
... Phillipe, what do you think we need to show the Director? WSDL or interaction?
Phillipe: Both. We should at least show him the WSDL does work . .
Jonathan & Phillipe: (discussion of logistics around getting to PR)
Jonathan: Since we have to wait for 2 weeks anyway, should we just keep things open in case we find more typos, etc.?
Phillipe: No objections to that . . .
Jonathan: This also gives me time to respond to all the comments . . .
Phillipe: The editorial actions are all done
Jonathan: (proposes that we don't
go to PR today)
... How long between voting to go to PR and getting the PR docs published?
Phillipe: A week (probably)
Jonathan: Plan of record is that we will vote to go to PR in 2 weeks.
Jonathan: I'll see if there is a response that I need to make . . .
Charlton: I need to let them know whether the WG accepts these resolutions
Jonathan: No call next week. Next call in two weeks: 2007-05-10