Notes from the OASIS
WSRF TC teleconference
29th November 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=4808
Approval of minutes from the previous teleconference call (15th
November)
See http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/10282
There were no comments on the minutes and no objections to
approving them.
Other Action Review
(DaveS) Collect requirements for renewable references,
including from Grid community - Pending. Action (Dave) Put this on the
agenda next time.
(SteveG) Make up sentences to describe the embodiment styles
for Issue 76 - Done.
(SueM) Decide whether the WSDL embodiment can satisfy DAIS
usage - Pending. Action (Dave) for the agenda next time.
(GlenD) Propose text to improve the description of the WSDL embodiment.
(Issue 77) - Pending.
(SteveG) Complete updates to WSRF-RAP, WSRF-RP and promote
to Editors Drafts - Done.
(Bryan) Move issues 78, 79 and 81 to ‘Open’. Remove issue 80
- Done.
(ALL) On 25th Nov (When WSRF-RP is refreshed) review all
specs for
inclusion of resolutions to issues 6, 56, 49, 53, 30, 43,
71, 4, 9, 24, 27,
48, 75, 76, 25 ready for next call (29th Nov). See Item #9
below. - Deferred
to later in the agenda.
(Bryan) Clarify status of issue 76 – should be ‘resolved’
based on existing proposal - Done, set as resolved.
(Bryan) Move issue 10 to ‘resolved’ - Done
Move Issue 20 to ‘Closed’ - Pending question
from Tim to move it to App notes.
Move issue 25 to ‘resolved’. - Done
Move issue 50 to ‘resolved’ - Done.
New Issues - Bryan
WSRF82: WSDL 1.1 embodiment too strict
(IanR) Is this really ongoing discussion under issue 77?
Action: (Bryan) Delete the issue.
WSRF83: Value change notification
(Bryan) Are these due to value change operation or internal
changes?
(SteveG) We need to see where the misunderstanding lies.
(DaveS) But we need an issue to make sure it’s clear.
(SteveG) The phrase ‘Request notification of changes’ surely
means everything that changes.
(Bryan) But ‘executing or observing’ in the next paragraph
needs to be changed.
Action: (Bryan) Move to Open.
AppNotes
Outline
Based on the
posting last week, what do people think about the structure:
1 Introduction
2 Base
WS-Resource Framework Application Notes
3 Extended
Application Notes: Composition with other Specifications
4 Extended
Application Notes: Use of WS-RF by Other Specifications
Is the format
OK, are there some more scenarios needed, and would anybody like to help?
(?) What is
the boundary between the Primer and part 2. A section on issues discussed in
the TC might also form part of the App Notes.
Action:
(John Fuller) - will help with the ASAP interaction with WSRF.
Face-to-Face planning
(IanR) Should we co-locate with OASIS symposium in New
Orleans in April 24th-26th. Is there anyone for or
against?
(SteveG) Meeting at that time might tempt/enable
less-frequent attendees to participate.
(Rich) An alternative, to avoid conflicts with other group
meetings is to meet in the preceding week. WSRP face-to-face is the week of 24th.
Rich has a conflict.
(WilliamV) William also has a conflict for 24th -
26th.
(IanR) One disadvantage is the need to fund the meeting in
hotels rather than a participant company.
Updated
working Drafts.
We need to move from editors drafts to committee drafts, which
means publishing the documents at the correct URL.
(DaveS) We need to finalize issue 76
(IanR) We should be able to close 6, 56, 49, 53, 30, 43, 71,
4, 9, 24, 27, 48, 75, 76.
This list will be emailed after the call.
Proposed: (Ian) to migrate the specs to the 2004/11
namespace.
(No Objections)
(IanR) We need to resolve an issue with namespaces of
pseudo-schema in ServiceGroup vs other specs.
Action: (Ian) to raise an issue to correct ServiceGroup
specification to align with other specs/wsdl/xsd usage.
(TimB) Issue 81 also affects this- we need to resolve that
first. The last email from SteveG (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200411/msg00018.html)
asked for opinions: mine is that the proposal to use the .wsdl namesace for the
inline schema would work.
Action: (Tim) Draft a proposal on resolution to issue
81.
Open Issues
WSRF 72: PutResourceProperties
Igor not on the call to support the
proposal.
(SteveG) This is not straightforward, what
happens for things which are read only?
(DaveS) We need a concrete proposal.
(IanR) This should be Ig
Action: (Igor) Put forward a proposal as to how this
would be done with respect to the semantics issues etc.
WSRF 51: Reference to WS-AtomicTransaction in WSRF-RP
(Ian) The ResourceProperties spec references Atomic
Transaction which is not closed as specification. We could change this to point
to other specs, (but others also open), remove the reference, or make a
non-normative reference and list examples of transaction specs.
Proposed to make the reference non-normative.
(No Objections)
Action: (Bryan) Move to ‘resolved’.
WSRF52: Delete will always fault if minOccurs > 0
(IanR) DeleteResourceProperties as described will always
fault if minoccurs >0. We need clarifying text to warn the reader.
(SteveG)This could be done in appnotes.
(Bryan) That’s fine.
(No Objections)
Action (Bryan): Update Issues with resolution.
WSRF64 Post Server Validation Infoset (PSVI)
What are the rules for server-side or client-side validation
of the message?
Action(MartinC): Write a clarification of the issue.
Meeting closed 17:26 est
Summary of actions
(DaveS) Add to agenda for next call: Collect requirements
for renewable references, including from Grid community (DaveS).
(DaveS) Add to agenda for next call: Can the WSDL embodiment
satisfy DAIS usage? (action for SueM)
(Tim) Resolve pending question re: issue 20 resolution
regarding moving this to App notes.
(Tim) Draft a proposal on resolution to issue 81.
(Bryan) Move issue 83 to Open. Delete issue 82, Move issue
51, 52 to ‘resolved’.
(Igor) Put forward a proposal to resolve issue 72 - how this
would be done with respect to the semantics issues etc.
(MartinC): Write a clarification of the requirement for
issue 64.