RE: minutes from April 18

Helping the minute taker through IRC is a good idea.  So is posting elaborations after the fact, as Igor has done.

It is very hard to capture all the nuances of technical discussion in the minutes.  If there are gifted minute takers who would like to volunteer on a more frequent basis, please let me know :-).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Jordahl [mailto:tomj@macromedia.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:40 AM
> To: 'Sedukhin, Igor'; Tom Jordahl; 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: minutes from April 18
> 
> 
> Igor,
> 
> I apologize if my note taking during this technical discussion omitted
> your points.  I will be the first to admit that my ability to concisely
> summarize individual points of the discussion "on paper" is limited at
> best.
> 
> A good tool for getting stuff in to the minutes is the IRC chat.  If those
> making technical points could summarize what they said/are going to say on
> the chat, then the note taker can do a quick cut and paste and not lose
> the thread of the discussion.
> 
> Anyone else have ideas for getting the main points of technical discussion
> in to the minutes for the note takers?  Thankfully, I wont be taking notes
> again for long while. :-)
> 
> --
> Tom Jordahl
> Macromedia Web Services
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sedukhin, Igor [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 7:57 PM
> To: Tom Jordahl; 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: Web Services Description Conference call minutes for April
> 18 , 20 02
> 
> 
> Tom,
> 
> Just for the record.
> 
> When discussing
> Issue: remove solicit-response and output-only operations?
> 
> I was pretty vocal about not trying to offload the requirement to define
> events and notifications to Orchestration standards. Also it should not
> matter if it is defined and/or required by other standards. Events and
> notifications (as well as subscription mechanism) must be part of the WSDL
> to properly describe service operations.
> I think Sanjiva had this point before (during F2F), but during the call,
> discussion seemed to only focused on the removal part, not the alternative
> event/callback definition which was part of the original proposal.
> 
> -- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
> -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Jordahl [mailto:tomj@macromedia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 12:57 PM
> To: 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'
> Subject: Web Services Description Conference call minutes for April 18, 20
> 02
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the minutes from today's conference call:
> 
> Web Services Description Working Group Conference Call
> April 18, 2002
> 
> Agenda
> -----------
> 1.  Attendance
> 2.  Approval of minutes
> 3.  New minutes process review
> 4.  Review of Action items.
> 5.  Coordination with WS Arch WG
> 6.  Requirements doc.
> 7.  WG approval to publish requirements and usage scenarios documents. 8.
> Tracking new issues 9.  Issues discussion.
> 
> 
> Attendance
> -----------------
> Present:
>  *Mike Ballantyne       Electronic Data Systems
>  David Booth            W3C
>  Allen Brookes          Rogue Wave Software
>  Roberto Chinnici       Sun Microsystems
>  Glen Daniels           Macromedia
>  Youenn Fablet          Canon
>  Dietmar Gaertner       Software AG
>  Mario Jeckle           DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
>  Tom Jordahl            Macromedia
>  Jacek Kopecky          Systinet
>  *Sandeep Kumar          Cisco Systems
>  Philippe Le Hégaret    W3C
>  Steve Lind             AT&T
>  *Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
>  Pallavi Malu           Intel
>  Jonathan Marsh         Microsoft Corporation
>  *Mike McHugh            W. W. Grainger
>  *Don Mullen             Tibco
>  Waqar Sadiq            Electronic Data Systems
>  Adi Sakala             IONA Technologies
>  Jeffrey Schlimmer      Microsoft Corporation
>  Igor Sedukhin          Computer Associates
>  Sandra Swearingen      U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force
>  *William Stumbo         Xerox
>  Jerry Thrasher         Lexmark
>  Sanjiva Weerawarana    IBM Corporation
>  Joyce Yang             Oracle
>  Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.
> * lost due to technical difficulties.
> 
> Regrets:
>  Michael Champion       Software AG
>  Laurent De Teneuille   L'Echangeur
>  Tim Finin              University of Maryland
>  Dan Kulp               IONA
>  Jeff Mischkinsky       Oracle Corporation
>  Jean-Jacques Moreau    Canon
>  Jochen Ruetschlin      DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
>  Arthur Ryman           IBM
>  Krishna Sankar         Cisco Systems
>  Dave Solo              Citigroup
>  William Vambenepe      Hewlett-Packard Company
>  Don Wright             Lexmark
> 
> Absent:
>  Keith Ballinger        Microsoft Corporation
>  Mike Davoren           W. W. Grainger
>  Michael Mealling       Verisign
>  Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce
>  Johan Pauhlsson        L'Echangeur
>  Stefano Pugliani       Sun
>  Radhika Roy            AT&T
>  Daniel Schutzer        Citigroup
> 
> 
> 
> Approval of minutes
> -----------------------------
> Last conference call:  http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/04-minutes.html
> Face-2Face:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-
> desc/2002Apr/0050.html
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0052.html
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0060.html
> 
> April 4th - Approved
> F2F minutes - Approved
> 
> 
> Problems with Verizon switch is preventing many from calling in
> 
> 
> New minutes process
> --------------------------------
> Details at:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0062.html
> Highlights:
>  - Publish agenda's to public list
>  - Publish minutes to public list, omitting 'sensitive' info.
>  - Dialing details will go to admin list.
>  - Corrections are sent to the public list.
> 
> TomJ: How does the attendance list get to the scribe?
> Jonathan will send in Email to the scribe.
> 
> 
> 
> Call adjourned to another conference call bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> Action Items
> -------------------
> DONE 2002.02.14 Jonathan: Map Face-to-Face meetings 6 months in advance.
>  - Dates and places on web page
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/f2fJuneLogistics.html
> 
> IN PROGRESS 2002.04.04 Editors to get CVS requests to Philippe.
> KEITH ABSENT 2002.03.07 Keith. Discuss open content model design.
> DONE 2002.03.21 Editors (Jeff/Sanjiva). Do presentations of top 5 broken
>            items in WSDL 1.1 at the F2F.
> DONE 2002.04.04 Everyone to read the use cases and send e-mail raising
>            issue for the FTF.
> DONE? 2002.04.04 Jeffrey to rephrase R083
> IN PROGRESS 2002.04.10 Sanjiva - add inconsistent use of port and endpoint
> to issues
>            list Arthur - work on text for a requirement to define
>            equivalence of wsdl document
> DONE (by Jonathan) 2002.04.10 Jeffrey Schlimmer to remove expected version
> annotations.
> PENDING 2002.04.11 Keith B. will write up descriptions for issues
> discussed in
>            presentations and add to issue lists if not there yet. due
>            date: next conference call.
> DONE 2002.04.11 Sanjiva W.  will post descriptions for issues discussed in
>            presentations and add to issue lists if not there yet.  due
> date:
>            next conference call
> PENDING 2002.04.11 Jeff Schlimmer Add UPNP example to use cases.
> DONE 2002.04.12 David Booth ask Eric for clarification and will cc RDF
> interest
>            group.
> DONE 2002.04.12 Jeffery, Sandeep, Waqar - have drafts ready by next telcon
> on
>            Thursday 4/18.
> 
> NEW ACTION - 2002.04.18  - Waqar will identify use cases to remove.
> NEW ACTION - 2002.04.18  - Waqar will post by next Tuesday a draft.
>                            Publish if no objections at the next telecon.
> 
> DONE 2002.04.12 JM will pursue use case task force with coordination
> group.
> 
> Coordination with WS Arch WG
> ----------------------------
> Jonathan:
> - Arch group has proposed they own the Glossary and Usage Scenarios docs.
> - Description will not create their own, just comment on theirs.
> 
> Waqar: concern that we might not like the docs we have to use.
> Jonathan: doesn't see any reason why our feedback would be ignored
> Glen: our usage may be more detailed than theirs
> Jonathan: Use cases would be more detailed than usage scenarios and
> slightly different
> TomJ: Let 'em have it, and lets get on to WSDL
> 
> 
> Requirements doc
> --------------------------
> Latest doc:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/att-
> 0104/01-ws-desc-reqs-20020417.html
> Jonathan moved rejects to the bottom.  Still editorial work to be done
> 
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jeffery will clean up R001
> Proposed new wording for R001 from Dave Booth:
>  [Accepted, Must, Charter] The language developed by the WG must permit
> any programming model,  transport or protocol for communication between
> peers. (Last revised 21 Feb 2002.)
> 
> New requirement from Mark Baker:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-
> ws-desc/2002Apr/0075.html
> Jonathan wants to add as a draft requirement. No objections
> 
> WG approval to publish requirements and usage scenarios documents
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> NEW ACTION: 2002.04.18 Jeffery will clean up requirements document,
> and we will have a publishable draft by next Tuesday,
> Publication process will start after conference call Thursday.
> 
> Discussion about how the review process will work.
> 
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jonathan, Philippe Investigate setting up new
> mailing list for review comments.
> 
> Tracking new issues
> -----------------------
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Sanjiva Add 5 new issues raised by Prasad in Email
> to the issues list. NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Waqar Add new use case raised on
> the mailing list to use cases.
> 
> 
> Issues discussion
> ------------------
> Issue: remove solicit-response and output-only operations?
> Thread starts at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-
> desc/2002Apr/0059.html
> 
> Prasad: Wants to keep them.
> JacekK: Address on port don't make sense for these operations Various
> arguments that something *like* solicit-response should be kept in the
> spec
> JeffS: It's not obvious to me that we need to keep solicit-response in the
> spec.
> 
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Prasad Write up question for XLANG and/or WSFL
> groups whether
> they need solicit-response.
> 
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jonathan Solicit input from XLANG and/or WSFL groups
> whether
> they need solicit-response.
> 
> 
> 
> Issue: support cross references within a WSDL file using ncnames? Thread
> starts at  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-
> desc/2002Apr/0061.html
> 
> Tabled till next time due to time limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> Summary of New Action Items
> ---------------------------
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18  Waqar will identify use cases to remove.
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18  Waqar will post by next Tuesday a draft.
>                        Publish if no objections at the next telecon. NEW
> ACTION 2002.04.18 Jeffery will clean up R001 NEW ACTION 2002.04.18
> Jonathan, Philippe Investigate setting up new mailing list for review
> comments. NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Sanjiva Add 5 new issues raised by Prasad
> in to the issues list. NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Waqar Add new use case raised
> on the mailing list NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Prasad Write up question for
> XLANG and/or WSFL groups whether
> they need solicit-response.
> NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jonathan Solicit input from XLANG and/or WSFL groups
> whether
> they need solicit-response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 16:48:24 UTC