See also: IRC log
<plh> (location: Rennes. 14-18 November)
<plh> confirmed for 14-17
<plh> 18, waiting for Youenn
<youenn> http://www.mont-saint-michel.net/
<plh> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Michael%27s_Mount
<youenn> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Saint_Michel
<TomJ> Scribe: Tom Jordahl
<TomJ> Scribe: TomJ
no comments or corrections to minutes of last week - APPROVED
discussion about Glens action item
Jonathan completed his
Retiring MEP usage item for all
3. Review of Action items [.1].
[Interop]
? 2006-07-06: [interop] Jonathan - create validation-report
stylesheet.
? 2006-07-20: [interop] Jonathan to add timestamps to result
stylesheet.
? 2006-09-21: [interop] Philippe to transform HTTP headers in
the logs to XML format.
DONE [.3] 2006-09-21: [interop] Arthur to regen Woden results.
WG
? 2005-07-21: Pauld to write a proposal for a working group
report for requirements for schema evolution
following closure of LC124
RETIRED 2006-03-30: Marsh to make XSLT improvements for RDF
publication.
? 2006-07-06: Glen to contribute some extension test cases.
DONE [.4] 2006-09-07: Marsh to propose workarounds for CR78.
RETIRED 2006-09-14: ALL to come back with MEP usage (specs?) by next week.
? 2006-09-21: Jonathan to check periodically that SPARQL has added
schemaLocation.
? 2006-09-21: Arthur to create a un-namespaced test case.
Jonathan: Implementors meeting
report - Renn for interop, Nov 14-18, 2006
... 9-12 participants, possible problem with location on Sat
the 18th
... not as much progress as we want, so hope that interop will
move things along
Agenda is getting short, next week - yes. But other weeks as "as needed"
Implementors calls will continue weekly
<scribe> Continued from last week
Features and Properties
Jonathan: Where are we at? MTOM might be a user, any progress on that?
might be able to extend SOAP module to include MTOM
Glen: SOAP module without properties isn't very useful
Jonathan: should this be a seperate issue?
Glen: SOAP module today relies on
F&P. So we need to either remove it, explain that config
isn't in WSDL, or create a new config method
... module syntax without properties isn't really worth
keeping
Jonathan: SOAP module was NOT
marked at risk...
... What about original MTOM issue?
Youenn: could reuse the policy syntax
discussion about how we can enhance the MTOM syntax
ominous silence as we think about leaving F&P in or hacking up other parts of the spec
Jonathan: If we remove F&P, we will need a proposal on how to handle MTOM
<pauld> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-primer-20060327/#adv-MTOM
Jonathan: Does the removal of F&P depend on replacing the ability to engage MTOM
Glen: I would like to see that done
jjm: I would like to see a proposal first
Any voluteers for a creating a proposal?
<pauld> <usingMTOM xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/soap/features/http-optimization">{true|false}</usingMTOM>
Youenn: will try, but on vacation next week
<scribe> ACTION: Youenn to propose an alternative syntax for MTOM if F&P is removed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/28-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
Jonathan: functionality of URI
replace at risk, but no evidence that it will be any less
implemented than the rest of the binding.
... Going to remove this from the agenda for now.
Still begs the question if we will get any HTTP biding implemented
Jonathan; We talked about this last week, any further thoughts on removing them?
concesus seems to still be to remove them
Jonathan: Any objection to letting the editors factor out a Note with the MEPS?
Amy volunteers to do the work
<scribe> ACTION: Editors to factor the "extra" MEPS out of the specification (Part 2) and make a new NOTE [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/28-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
Issue 289 - what kind of documents do we want to publish?
Jack: handle that last
Issue 291 - Canonicalized (C14n) should be used.
Jack: Yes
Issue 292 - more c14n
Jack: Yes, example in email.
Issue 293 - clarify the normative text
issue 294 - Class of products
Jack: well will add some more info to the text
issue 295 - RFC 2119 keywords
Jack: will soften or capitalize the text as appropriate
Issue 296 - no conformance section
Jack: doesn't seem necessary for a conformance section, we will add text to calrify
Jonathan: wouldn't someone say they conform to the RDF spec?
Jack: well, maybe. We can add something
<Jonathan> ACTION: Marsh to suggest some generic conformance text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/28-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Issue 297 - Generic Extension Mechanism
Jack: Not sure what the issue is, will contact to get clarification
<scribe> ACTION: Jack to follow up with Karl Dubost to get info about RDF issue 297 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/28-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
Issue 298 - Editorial
Jack: will take them under advisement
RESOLUTION: Close RDF issues 291-298 with actions as discussed
RESOLUTION: Close RDF issues 291-298 with actions as discussed
Jonathan: When so you expect to have these edits done?
Jack: End of October seems like a good target for next draft (or LC)
<pauld> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR064
Editorial comments - refer them to the editors
RESOLUTION: CR64 is sent to the editors
RESOLUTION: Close and send to the editors as CR64
<pauld> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR078
Amy: Not convinced we need to do
anything to advance this use case.
... don't see an easily portable way to deal with one
particular Schema language
Jonathan: Proposal to close with no action
Any objections?
No objections
RESOLUTION: Close CR78 with no action, Jonathan to compose a reply with details
Skip CR80
Issue from the TAG, take a look at it once we are much closer to interop.
No other business?
<charlton> lets adjourn :-)
Adjourned
<pauld> regrets for next week, at a F2F