Minutes of the telecon on 23rd August

[Tim Banks <tim_banks@uk.ibm.com>]

The minutes are stored at
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/8917 and
attached to this note.

Unfortunately, I failed to capture all of the details of the actions that
were suggested at the end of the discussion on issue 1, which were divided
between SteveG, Igor and Fred.  If anyone else can recall it, it  would
help us make progress at the next call.


(See attached file: WSRF TC [23Aug04] notes[1].htm)



Regards, Tim Banks
IBM TP Architecture & Technology. Hursley, UK.
Phone: External +44 1962 815639, Internal 245639

Title: WSRF TC notes

Notes from the OASIS WSRF TC Teleconference on
23^rd August 2004

 

Roll call

 

The roll call is kept on the TC web site under the meeting record.

See http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/event.php?event_id=4801

 

Approval of minutes from previous telecon (9^th August)

 

See: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/8656

 

There were no comments and no objections to approving the minutes.

 

Other Action Review

Action Review.

(SteveG) Propose text to resolve issue 4. (Carried fwd from f2f)

Action: Defer to next call
(TomM) Write resolution for issue 10. (Carried fwd from f2f)

Action: Defer to next call
(Sam) Raise a new issue to consider an identity mechanism. (Carried fwd from f2f)

Action: Defer to next call
(Bryan) Move issues 62 through to 64 to Open. Done
(Chairs) Add agenda item for next face-to-face: discuss the scenario doc and the schedule. Done
(Ian) Add Agenda item for the next call to review Requirements doc Done
(Ian) Add Agenda item for the next call to review outline for the App Notes doc Done
(SteveG) Make a proposal for text to resolve issue 1 (Origins of interface aggregation) to mailing list. See discussion below
(Bryan) Move issue 1 to resolved.

(Ian) Should we move back to open until precise text is available?

(Bryan) Yes.

Action: (Bryan) Move issue 1 to ‘Open’
(Glen) Propose wording to resolve issue 20 (Notification message format) to mailing list.

Action: Defer to next call
(WilliamV) Start a mailing list discussion for issue 24 (xpath Namepsace).

Action: Defer to next call
(Ian) Continue discussion of issue 24 at next telecom. Done

 

Acceptance of New Issues to the issue list.

Issue WSRF67: TerminationTime property should allow Set/Update

 

(SteveG) Is there doc in the spec that explains why this is not allowed?

(Latha) There is text to explain it, but not why.

(DaveS) Semantics of setting the time are different in the explicit op – eg synching of the clock.

(Latha) It is strange that this property setting needs to be disabled.

(DaveS) But, if we have metadata for set-ability, that anomaly goes away.

(IanR) Doesn’t everyone agree it’s not an issue, because we don’t need two ways to set termination time?

(Bryan) I raised it on behalf of implementers. They think it looks like a strange anomaly needing extra work to implement.

Action: (Bryan) to review with implementers. Leave status as ‘proposed’.

Issue ???:  ResourcePropertyChangeNotification

 

See: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200408/msg00043.html

Need to put property value in the notification

(No objections)

Action: Move to open

 

Issue ???: using setResourceProperties

See http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200408/msg00044.html

Contact – Roger Mendez

 

(DaveS) Propose email discussion via the list.

Agreed.

 

Action: (All) Discuss via maling list.

Requirements document

(DavidL) There should be something next week. Review at the next call.

Action: (Ian) Add Agenda item to review requirements doc at the next call.

 

Review outline for the App Notes doc

The outline was proposed in:
 http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200408/msg00000.html

 

(TimB) The AppNotes outline is different in scope from the Primer: more sophisticated. A Primer would be an introduction, including the kind of material in the whitepapers. (AlanW) But we already have the whitepapers.

(IanR) Face-to-face showed some interest in the Primer concept: perhaps there is a need for two documents?

(TimB) What will happen to the Whitepapers?

(IanR) The whitepapers are needed and some material will be brought forward into the new normative document, but we don’t have anything like the “State” paper and/or OGSI Primer.

(Igor) It’s useful to put the updated papers into a TC document. The application note clarifies intricacies.

(IanR) Are there volunteers to support/help review the Primer?

(Yes: Igor/Katy/Jem/Alan)

Action: (TimB) Propose Primer outline for next call.

 

(AlanW)Is the AppNote outline approved?

(IanR) Proposed: Outline for the appnote is approved

(No objections)

Action: (AlanW) Continue to generate contents for AppNote.

 

Issues review

 

Issue WSRF1: Interface association is lost with the required aggregation model

 (SteveG) If we try to merge WSRF specs with domain-specific interfaces we lose information about the origin of the operations.

Approaches: we do not have a composition model – can investigate the portType – but this is hard for the client.

(DaveS) Even this requires a hope and a prayer – the semantics may not be the same.

(DavidL) The inference gets larger as new versions of the portType are produced.

(SteveG) Other options are a full-scale backport of WSDL 2.0, or an attribute on the portType – which is a halfway house. If we call it ‘extends’ then we might be confusing it with the attribute used in WSDL 2.0. We can keep the portType as it is, but add documentation elements on the operations.  However, this needs tooling to look in the new elements.

(Igor) Why is this useful?

(SteveG) Because (eg) if I’m discovering servers to manage, I can’t tell which portType is being extended, and so which semantics are implied.

(Igor) This doesn’t seem to be the job of WSRF. Why isn’t the responsibility of WSDL?

(Fred) We ‘object’ people think extension is a good thing, but couldn’t this be done with multiple ports.

(SteveG) Some tooling may not cope, and addressing mechanisms may not be compatible. Eg WS-Addressing does not take a port/service view.

(Igor) We can equivalently rewrite wsdl 1.1 multiple ports with different portTypes as WSDL 2.0 (?)

(IanR) Can we ask the WSDM TC (as the proposer) for preferences about how this should work?

(Igor) WSRF is not a trash can for all the issues that WSDM has. This is a Web Services issue, and it belongs with WSDL 2.0.

(SteveG) We can’t wait for WSDL 2.0.

Actions:

(SteveG) Write proposal about ‘extends’ on portType 

(Igor) Write proposal about (?)

(Fred) Write proposal about multiple ports

 

WSRF48: Specify behavior of nillable properties
Clarify status of this issue. This has been targetted as an AppNotes issue and a proposed
resolution posted (http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200407/msg00128.html). Is this issue resolved?

(Bryan) This is left as open, pending production of appnote/Primer.

(IanR) This can be moved to ‘resolved’ if there are no objections to the text.

(Agreed)

Action: Move to resolved.

WSRF27: Add operation to return entire property document

(SteveG) It would be quick to produce a proposal

(DaveS) It is possible to get the whole document with a “query all”, so do we need it?

(SteveG) The operation supports the REST mode of operation. Also, to retrieve a whole list of properties is easier with a single op.

(IanR) Proposed to have a GetAllProperties operation, with the same signature as the current operation.

Action: (SteveG) Proposal text.

Summary of actions

(SteveG) Propose text to resolve issue 4. (Carried fwd from f2f)

(TomM) Write resolution for issue 10. (Carried fwd from f2f)

(Sam) Raise a new issue to consider an identity mechanism. (Carried fwd from f2f)

(Bryan) Move issue 1 to ‘Open’

(Glen) Propose wording to resolve issue 20 (Notification message format) to mailing list.

(WilliamV) Start a mailing list discussion for issue 24 (xpath Namepsace). (Carried fwd from 9^th Aug)

(Bryan) Review issue 67 with raisers (implementers) in the light of telecon discussion, and leave status as ‘proposed’.

(All) Discuss potential ‘Using SetResourceProperties’ issue via mailing list.

(Ian) Add Agenda item to review requirements doc at the next call.

(TimB) Propose Primer outline for review next call.

(SteveG) Write proposal for Issue 1 using ‘extends’ on portType 

(Igor) Write proposal for Issue 1 using (?)

(Fred) Write proposal for Issue 1 using multiple ports.

(Bryan) Move issue 48 to Resolved.

(SteveG) Propose text for issue 27.