RE: Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mark.nottingham@bea.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, Feb 17, 2005 15:31 PM
>To: Yalcinalp, Umit
>Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>Subject: 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,

Fair enough. There are two corrections:  

I inserted <umit> Tags to reflect what I was trying to convey. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Issue 020

"Issue 20 subissue vi closed with Tony's amendment"
 should read 
"Issue 20 subissue iv closed with Tony's amendment"


------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Issue 048
<pauld> Paco's summary:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0039.ht
ml

Umit: if deploying minor improvements to services, you wouldn't
advertise new endpoints for them

<umit> This is especially relevant to deploying different versions of
the same webservice. One would not publish a new endpoint for a minor,
monotonic and backwards compatible new version of a web service. Such an
example is adding a new message exchange and a service provider will use
the existing endpoint. This specific use case appears be prohibited by
the definition of the comparison we have. 

We just made a decision about clarifying the distinction between EPR,
endpoint and endpoint components for issue 20, subissue iv. This means
that there may be multiple EPRs that refer to the same endpoint. Section
2.3 effectively contradicts the definition which we just agreed upon.
The comparison rules we have do not mean that EPRs are the same. They
just refer to the same endpoint. 

</umit>

Marc: do you plan to use Reference Parameters to distinguish the
endpoints?

Umit: Potentially

Marc: that gets back into identity

<anish> wsrf tc uses that if i'm not mistaken

<hugo> +1 to what Marc said

Marc: it seems we're trying to get around our resolution to Issue 001.

<pauld> son used a banana as a toy gun yesterday. we're thinking of
eliminating all fruit from his diet.

Chair: we need more discussion on list and at F2F

<umit> Correction, I meant to say EPRs, not endpoints. Apologies for the
confusion. </umit>

>
>
>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 Monday, 21 February 2005 03:31:00 UTC