Re: Agenda for joint TAG/WS-Addressing Meeting at Feb. 2005 Technical Plenary

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Hi Noah,
Hi Mark.

> On Feb 1, 2005, at 6:30 AM, wrote:
> >
> > At least for the moment, we have a preference for putting the joint
> > session on Monday morning Feb. 28, overlapping with the TAGs own 
> > scheduled
> > 1/2 day F2F session.  That has the advantage that most all TAG members
> > will be there.  It also has the disadvantage that time will be 
> > limited.  So, we need to settle on a plan for how we'll use our time, 
> > see
> > how much time will be needed, and either confirm that it will fit in 
> > the
> > limited morning time we have or else reschedule for later.

> Do you mean the entire morning? 

No! Sorry I wasn't clear.  The TAG is only meeting together for the one 
morning on Monday the 28th.  The rest of the week many of us will be 
generally around, dividing time between selected joint TAG/WG meetings and 
doing other business.  If the WSA joint session is sufficiently short, 
then we might carve it out of Monday morning.  Otherwise, it will have to 
be at another time. 

> We're already exceeding our chartered deadlines,
> and plan to go to Last Call at that meeting or
> shortly afterwards. As such, being able to
> dedicate as much time as possible to issue
> resolution at this F2F is extremely important to
> the WG (which is why we're also meeting on
> Sunday).

Like you, we are busy and are interested in making our joint meeting as 
efficient as possible.

> So, my preference would be to have a one- or
> two-hour session on Monday morning to briefly
> introduce our work to the TAG and then discuss
> specific issues. If further discussion is
> required, we could schedule a teleconference for
> after the TP, so as not to put our chartered
> deadlines at risk.

Will have to check with the rest of the TAG , as we have much other 
business that morning.  I'm going to make a tentative call, which is that 
based on the rest of your response we've got a fighting chance of doing 
this in 90 minutes, but not reliably in less.

TAG members:  do you agree 90 mins is the right target, and do you think 
we can free 90 mins of our joint time Monday morning?  If so, let's agree 
to that and then we can refine the agenda.  If not, I suggest we find a 
time other than Monday morning.  We might manage in 60 mins, but it would 
be easy to get off track and behind schedule. I suggest we schedule 90, 
and try to end early if we can.

> > Proposed Agenda
> > ---------------
> >
> > I welcome your suggestions for how to use our time, but offer the
> > following as strawperson agenda:
> >
> > * Orientation from WSA group for TAG members.  We would benefit from a
> > semi-formal presentation on the following, I think:
> > - What are the use cases for WSA?  Which such use cases are agreed to 
> > by
> > WSA members and which are controversial?

> The WG does not have a Use Cases document as part
> of its deliverables, and is early in the process
> of collecting test cases for CR, which may serve a
> dual role of standing in for Use Cases. So, I
> doubt we will be able to prepare and review
> anything useful by that time.

Well, I think some of us assumed that to define a useful technology you 
must have had at least some shared understanding of use cases, and if so 
we'd like to understand those.  In any case, we want to learn enough to 
understand whether particular WSA mechanisms will likely be used in a 
manner that is or isn't consistent with good practice on the Web.

> However, we could arrange for presentation of a
> few illustrative use cases, as long it's
> understood they don't *necessarily* represent
> consensus, or the entire set of use cases that are
> important to WG members.

Understood.  I'll leave it to individual TAG members to chime in now or at 
the meeting if they have any unresolved concerns regarding use cases.

> > - Brief overview of latest WSA drafts or other pertinent materials.
> > Explain the features of your design, and briefly show how it would be
> > applied to the use cases.
> Yes.

Excellent, thank you.

> > - Brief overview of WSA discussions/decisions that you believe relate 
> > to
> > issues of interest to the TAG (presumably at least those involving
> > identity, use of URIs, and which abstractions in your use cases are
> > assigned EPRs and/or URIs), including review of unresolved areas.
> I think this is i001, which has been resolved. See the issues list;
> as well as e-mail on the WG list with a Subject: line containing "i001";
> name=subject&hdr-1-query=i001&resultsperpage=50&sortby=date&index- 
> type=l&index=public-ws-addressing
> (note that some relevant e-mails may not be so tagged).

OK.  My impression is that there might be other potential points of shared 
interest, and if so we should try to identify those in advance as well.

> > * Focussed discussion of specific controversial issues.  I need your 
> > help
> > here as to how best to frame these for an agenda, how many big ones 
> > likely to be there, and how much time you'd guess would be right.
> This should include the TAG issue just opened.

> Beyond that, I'm not sure; any WG issues that are controversial will be 
> discussed (and hopefully resolved) at the F2F, so it's difficult to say 
> what issues will be existent or controversial at that time.

OK.  I'd invite www-tag and other TAG members to chime in with any areas 
that they believe should be added to the list of WSA/TAG focus areas.

> > Preparation
> > -----------
> >
> > TAG members are usually pretty good about reading materials in advance 
> > of
> > meetings, and indeed we prefer to come in prepared.  Our discussion 
> > time
> > tends to be limited.  It would be very helpful if you could point us 
> > materials you think we should review, presumably including the 
> > following:
> >
> > * Use case and requirements analysis.  We're trying to understand how 
> > WSA
> > and EPRs will be used in practice.
> See above.


> > * Working drafts (or other drafts) that we should review.
> Linked from our WG home page;


> Note that we have a vote scheduled for next week to approve a new round 
> of Working Drafts. In the meantime, it's most appropriate to review the 
> current Editors' Drafts.

OK.  Feel free to announce new WD's on www-tag.

> > * Pointers to email threads or other materials that will help us to 
> > come
> > up to speed on issues likely to be of interest to the TAG.
> I'll ask the WG to nominate some.

Thank you.

> Regards,
And to you! 

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


Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:41:45 UTC