See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Hugo
<scribe> ACTION: JacekK to detail (e.g. in a list) what constraints of the component model are not enforced by the WSDL ontology. [IN PROGRESS] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: JacekK to add an example to the RDF Mapping. [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
Jonathan: I wanted to talk about
schedule
... when do we envision a LC WD?
Jacek: Bijan, when do you think that we'll have the mapping tables?
Bijan: they're pretty close to being ready
Jonathan: who's doing that?
Bijan: a graduate student at my school
Jonathan: we'll need to ack
him
... maybe he'll be interested in joining the WG
... so what state will we be in at the end of the month?
Jacek: it can be mostly done by
the TP
... shortly after the TP, we could aim for LC
Jonathan: a detailed review at
the TP will be welcome
... and we can go to LC 1 month later
Hugo: I wanted to update the WG
with rechartering thoughts
... we're going to propose to the AC not to keep the RDF
mapping on the Rec track in the end
... the message will go out real soon now
Jonathan: but it doesn't change our goal to go to LC
Hugo: that's correct
Jonathan: w.r.t. RDF task force, Tony will be chairing the meetings starting next meeting
[ Feeling in the WG that XSLT isn't the way forward ]
Jacek: David would like to see a
mapping from XMLspec to the RDF
... I believe that mapping the component model is cleaner
Bijan: I agree that we should close with no action
Jonathan: XSLT seems like an interesting implementation
Jacek: I don't think that the pain is worth it
Jonathan: also, the edge cases in
XSLT are tricky
... was there more than using XSLT in this issue?
Jacek: I think that we can answer
David and tell him that no, we will not have a normative
XSLT
... but the rest of the issue should be open
Bijan: we should add some text saying that the mappings are not designed for validation of the component model
RESOLUTION: Issue
283: no to a definitive list of unenforced constraints, and yes
to a general statement saying that there may be unenforced
constraints with a couple of examples
... Issue 283: no to a normative XSLT
<scribe> ACTION: Jacek to implement resolution for issue 283 (above) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
RESOLUTION: issue 283 is closed
this makes Jacek's first action item unneeded
Jacek: comment about "Section 1.
Introduction"
... I agree it would be nice, but I'm not sure where to do
it
... I declined to do that
... "Section 3. Differences from the WSDL Component Model"
[missed that]
scribe: "Section 3.1 Component
naming"
... I think that this issue is against the component
designators, not the RDF mapping
... "Appendix A: the owl ontology source"
... this is still open in the context of another issue
... I believe that we can close this issue with the editorial
changes made
... the last part is covered by issue 286
Jonathan: so do you want to close it now or leave it open?
Jacek: I think that it's fine closing it
Bijan: I agree that we should close the issue
RESOLUTION: issue 284 closed with editorial changes
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to close issue 285 in the issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
ACTION- 5
Jacek: the annotations WG will come up with an ontology a whole and a part
Bijan: I'm not sure that I agree
that it's exactly the same
... and I'm a little nervous on taking a dependency here
... I think that it would be better to keep it more closely
tied to our spec
Jacek: if we keep our ontology,
if we want to use their whole-part ontology, then we'll have a
problem because it will be overloaded
... from service to interface and from @@@ to @@@
Bijan: if they're different, then we should introduce a new relationship
Jacek: in any case, we should not use the part-whole ontology just yet
Bijan: I agree
RESOLUTION: Issue 286 closed; not doing it yet
Jacek: I haven't had time to look
into that yet
... we could separate the bindings into separate modules
... but I'm not sure how many modules would make sense
Bijan: I don't think that it's
really worth it
... and I don't think that it's appropriate
... trying to split along namespaces doesn't make sense
... if you want to do some separation, I can run it against our
analysis tool and see what happens
<scribe> ACTION: Bijan to run the partitioning analysis on ontology [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
Jacek: we need a URI to point to
the idea of SOAP MEP
... we asked them to bless our URI, but they declined because
of a TAG recommendation
... they promised to give us a URI
Jonathan: so we should leave this one open until we get the URI from them then