Re: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-11-28

Please add my proposal for i059
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Nov/0051.html>
to the list of proposals for that issue, with my apologies for not
making the connection clearer.

Mark Nottingham wrote:

> W3C Web Services Addressing Working Group - distributed meeting agenda
> ? Monday, 28 Nov
> ? 21:00-23:00 UTC; 13:00-15:00 US/Pacific; 16:00-18:00 US/Eastern;
> 21:00-23:00 UK/London; 22:00-24:00 FR/Paris; 7:00-9:00 (Tuesday)
> AU/Brisbane; 8:00-10:00 (Tuesday) AU/Melbourne
>
> ? Dial-in information on WG Admin page
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/admin>
>
> 1. Roll call, select scribe
> (see scribe list below)
>
> 2. Agenda review, AOB
>
> 3. Call for corrections to the minutes
> ? - 2005-11-07: <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/11/f2f-minutes.html>
> ? - 2005-11-21:
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/11/21-ws-addr-minutes.html>
>
> 4. Review action items <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/admin#actionitems>
> ?? ?2005-11-09: ?mit Yal??nalp to rewrite proposal 1.? PENDING
> ? ? 2005-11-21: Anish Karmarkar to respond to Neil Hudson's e-mail.?
> PENDING
> ?? ?2005-11-21: ?mit Yal??nalp to rework options 1 and 3,
> incorporating Jonathan's proposal into 1.? PENDING
>
> 5. CR Issues <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/>
>
> * cr10 - TAG Request for Change to WS Addressing Core
> ? Proposal 1: Add note: Web Architecture dictates that resources
> should be identified with URIs.? Thus, use of the abstract properties
> of an EPR other than wsa:address to identify resources is contrary to
> Web Architecture.? In certain circumstances, use of such additional
> properties may be convenient or beneficial, perhaps due to the
> availability of QName-based tools.? When building systems that violate
> this principle, care must be taken to weigh the tradeoffs inherent in
> deploying resources that are not on the Web.?
> ? Proposal 2: The Web Architecture dictates that resources should be
> identified with URIs. Thus, use of the abstract properties of an EPR
> other than [destination] to identify a resource may result in it not
> being on the Web. In certain circumstances, use of such additional
> properties may be convenient or beneficial. When building systems that
> use non-URI identifiers, care must be taken to weigh the tradeoffs
> inherent in deploying resources that are not on the Web.
> ? Proposal 3: The Web Architecture dictates that resources should be
> identified with URIs. Thus, use of the abstract properties of an EPR
> other than [destination] to identify a resource is out of the scope of
> the Web Architecture. In certain circumstances, use of such additional
> properties may be convenient or beneficial. When building systems that
> use non-URI identifiers, care must be taken to weigh the tradeoffs
> inherent in deploying resources that are not on the Web.
> ? Proposal 4: The Web Architecture dictates that resources should be
> identified with URIs. Thus, use of the abstract properties of an EPR
> other than [destination] to identify a resource loses core benefits of
> the Web Architecture [AoWWW 2.1]. In certain circumstances, use of
> such additional properties may be convenient or beneficial. When
> building systems that use non-URI identifiers, care must be taken to
> weigh the tradeoffs inherent in deploying resources that are not on
> the Web.
> ? Proposal 5: The W3C Architecture of the World Wide Web [AoWWW]
> recommends as Best Practice [Section 2.1] the use of URIs to identify
> resources. Following this best practice precludes the use of abstract
> properties of an EPR other than [destination] to identify resources.?
> In certain circumstances, such a use of additional properties may be
> convenient or beneficial.? However, when building systems, the
> benefits or convenience of identifying a resource using reference
> parameters should be carefully weighed against the benefits of
> identifying a resource solely by URI.
> ??
> 6. WD Issues <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/>
>
> * i059 - Support for asynchronous / multi-MEP usage of web services
> ? Owner: Glen Daniels
> ? ACTION: 2005-11-09: ?mit Yal??nalp to rewrite proposal 1.? Due
> 2005-11-16? PENDING
> ? ACTION: 2005-11-21: ?mit Yal??nalp to rework options 1 and 3,
> incorporating Jonathan's proposal into 1.? PENDING
> ? Proposal 1:
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/att-0116/ProposalTake3.htm>
> ? Proposal 2:
> <http://www.w3.org/mid/D1503191-88CA-4537-A20A-1F891F43606D@Sun.COM>
>
> 7. Testing Report <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/>
> ??
> 8. Other Business
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Scribe list
>
> A participant from the Member at the top of the list is expected to
> scribe the meeting. If no participant from that Member is able to
> scribe, a participant from the the next Member on the list is expected
> to scribe, and so forth. After one participant from a Member scribes,
> that Member's name goes to the bottom of the list.
>
> Systinet
> Datapower
> Sun
> Novell
> SAP
> Nortel
> TIBCO
> webMethods
> Microsoft
> Fujitsu
> BEA
> BT
> Sonoa
> Sonic
> W3C
> Nokia
> Hitachi
> CA
> HP
> IBM
> Oracle
> Arjuna
> ERICSSON
> IONA
>
>
> See <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/minutes.html> for more information
> about taking minutes.
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham ? Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO ? BEA Systems
>