Re: Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference

Incorporated. I've also taken some liberty in eliding another WG  
participant's comments about his son and a banana.

Cheers,


On Feb 20, 2005, at 7:30 PM, Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:

>
>
>> -----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
>>
>>
>
>

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

Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 18:56:26 UTC