Minutes
Scribe: Danny van der Rijn
Waiting for quorum. Agenda pre-bashed.
AI review
AI#21: Sanjay will followup
Still waiting for proposal from Dieter
JIRA Status
3 issues have been resolved but not updated. Michael not on call
Status of spec.
Dieter not on call. Status of resolved issues not known.
Action: Najeeb to take action to coordinate editors to reflect updated issues
Issue 15
Discussion ran out of time last week
But we're not quorate right now
<Mike Edwards>
I am on the call now if that helps
Approval of minutes
Updated minutes have been sent including the roll. Sent out yesterday.
Motion: Approve minutes of May 15, 2008
Issue 15
motion made by Martin Chapman, 2nd from Mike Edwards
Motion approved unanimously
Martin:
Motion resolves and closes issue 15
Martin:
No editing needed, this is just language to use when using RFC 2119 language
Motion: Martin moves to resolve issue 15 and instruct editors to insert the definitions from the previous motion
motion approved unanimously
Resolution: Issue 15 resolved with the proposal at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200803/msg00000.html
Issue 18
Anish:
This is something that the editors need to take on and bring back to TC. No need for TC to debate this open-endedly
Action: Najeeb to coordinate editors to pick a "chunky" section, rewrite it in RFC 2119, bring back to TC for discussion
<Mike Edwards>
said with feeling, Martin
Issue 16
Anish to prod Dieter for a proposal
AOB
Mike Edwards:
We should lay down algorithm for determining service or reference (recall discussion from last week)
Mike Edwards:
Need to raise issue
Mike Rowley:
Stating that a static analysis *can* perform the algorithm was assumed to be enough. Hoping that Mike Edwards would point
out inconsistency in that assumption.
Mike Edwards:
It wasn't clear to me when I wrote the code that there weren't other choices.
Mike Edwards:
Then let's put the algorithm (that I used) in the spec
Mike Rowley:
One of the values of leaving it specified abstractly is that it is extensible to BPEL extensions.
Mike Rowley:
e.g. BPEL 4 Subprocesses
Mike Edwards:
Is it testable?
Martin:
I think the algorithm is pretty clear
anish i see u michaelR, want to let a little bit of back and forth
Michael Rowley:
I think the issue of testability is an important one. Would both statements be tested the same way?
Michael Rowley:
Would the introduction of a specific algorithm change the way we test for it?
Anish:
We'll put this on the agenda along with Issue 15
Anish:
Any other business?
Schreiber diagnostics output
[Delete this section before publishing the minutes]
citation-detection-scribed: Line 22: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'AI#21'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 50: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'Motion'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 63: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'Motion'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 73: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'Motion'
statistics: Schreiber found 71 input lines
edits: Schreiber found the following text-edit commands:
edits: Line 57: Danny: s/unanimoulsy/unanimously/
edits: Line 75: Danny: s/Martine/Martin/
edits: Line 89: Danny: s/"meaty"/"chunky"/
command-scribe: Line 2: Danny van der Rijn recognized
command-scribe: Schreiber detected that this section was scribed online
edit-substitute: command on line 57 succeeded, changed line 53 from 'unanimoulsy' to 'unanimously'
edit-delete: Line 57 was deleted
edit-substitute: command on line 75 succeeded, changed line 73 from 'Martine' to 'Martin'
edit-delete: Line 75 was deleted
edit-substitute: command on line 89 succeeded, changed line 87 from '"meaty"' to '"chunky"'
edit-delete: Line 89 was deleted
system: Transformer: SAXON 9.0.0.2
[End of Schreiber diagnostic output]