Re: Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference

Umit,

Thanks. Could you please suggest some concrete changes to the minutes 
(i.e., identify text to be replaced/augmented, along with new text)?

Cheers,


On Feb 17, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org]
>> Sent: Monday, Feb 14, 2005 15:32 PM
>> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>> Subject: Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference
>>
>> ... are available for review at:
>>    http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/02/14-ws-addr-minutes.html
>>
>> as well as attached.
>>
>> Thanks to Mark Peel for scribing.
>>
>>
>
> After reading the minutes, I realized that Marc and I talked past each
> other and I could not express what I was getting at correctly about
> Issue048. Since some of what I have said seem to be missing as well, a
> correction is in order.
>
> What I was trying to say was that Reference Parameters may be used to
> distinguish EPRs, NOT Endpoints. Apologies for not noticing this in the
> IRC and correcting it at the call. Issue048 is about comparison of 
> EPRs,
> NOT about Endpoints. There is a very important distinction here, as
> there are three different notions we are dealing with, EPRs, Endpoint
> and Endpoint Components in WSDL. The terms are used interchangeably and
> it causes confusion. IMO, most of my problems with the EPR comparison
> section is about this interchangeable use of language.
>
> I also indicated in the call that we have just made a decision about
> Issue020 Subissue iv (note that the statement in the minutes should 
> read
> "Issue 20 subissue iv closed with Tony's amendment" instead of "Issue 
> 20
> subissue vi closed with Tony's amendment") which clarified the
> differences between EPR, Endpoint, Endpoint Component. Since there can
> be many EPRs that may be used to address a specific endpoint which may
> in fact have multiple descriptions, I was trying to indicate that when
> comparing two EPRs Reference Parameters may be significant. This does
> not mean that the endpoints that two EPRs are referring to are
> different. Hence, I don't believe we have an issue here about identity,
> etc.
>
> I will make rest of my points in the appropriate thread for Issue048 
> why
> the section is broken. This note is just to correct the minutes.
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2005 23:31:34 UTC