Notes from the OASIS WSRF TC teleconference
2nd May 2005
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=7735
Confirm minute taker
Call for minute taker since Tim is gone: Bryan drafted
Approve minutes of April 18th telecon
See: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/12327
There were no comments and no objections to
approving the minutes.
Call for AOB
None.
Action Review
(TomM) Review
issue resolutions implement in WS-Resource and noted in:
http://www.oasisopen.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200504/msg00005.html
Done
(Bryan) Move wsrf107 to open. Done
(Bryan) Move wsrf108 to closed (no action)
Done
(Bryan) Move wsrf102 to resolved. Done
(Spec authors)
to review the impact of Williams proposal on the normative text. – to be
talked about later in the context of issue 103
New issues to consider - Bryan
- Issue WSRF109
“Clarify authoritative precedence earlier”
-
do we want precedence to be pseudo-schema first?
- not
clear what the required precedence is in the current doc
-
should the text take precedence over pseudo-schema?
-
WSDL has an example where schema was changed at last minute
Action: Bryan – move to Open
Feed back from New Orleans
- WSRF was not presented due to mix-up in
slides – wsrf was early
- music was good
- lightning round was interesting, but many
presenters went over time
Comments on App Note resolutions.
See: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/12346/DraftAppNotesIssues63_95_22_52_89.doc
any comments on the resolutions should be sent to the email
list
Everyone should read through this document in the next week
Katy will merge this document into AppNotes doc
Action: (spec authors)
– review AppNotes additions document
Face-to-Face Agenda items
(IanR) We need to work on candidate
committee drafts.
We need more progress on ServiceGroups and
resource metadata specs.
Need to validate where we are with Appnotes
and Primer.
(DaveS) I would say we need to be ready for
committee drafts by the end of the meeting, with enough detail for the authors
to be ready for ballot the week after.
(IanR) We should prepare by getting all
currently resolved issues implemented.
(DaveS) I agree that getting committee
drafts is the major goal – does anyone disagree.
No-one does.
(DaveS) What about metadata.
(TomM) It is suffering from lack of
attention.
(DaveS) We should spend time on
rationalizing it to the point where we can start to raise issues.
(IanR) Do we have time for a new version
before the face-to-face?
(Willliam) What changes are we
anticipating?
(TomM) We intend to make proposals to
simplify it.
(IanR) Why don’t we set up a call for those
interested in metadata to discuss proposals. Who will join?
(Several will)
Action: (IanR/TomM)
Organise the call and advertise via the TC web site.
(IanR) do we need something on the Primer,
too?
(TimB) Yes, I will post the current
version, and we should use a little time to get feedback.
Issue review - Chair
WSRF103: Multiple Service Port elements legitimate?
See proposal from Tom and William http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200504/msg00020.html
(TomM) We had a call last week where we
discussed metadata to identify the origin of operations in aggregated portTypes.
The proposal is to put something in Appnotes to recommend use of wsa:action
attributes in the input element, and a normative change to the specs to use wsa:action
instead of soapAction in the spec operations.
(DaveS) We have until now isolated the
effect of WS-Addressing to WS Resource. We are now going to use it as a
normative reference in all specs. This is a little uncomfortable, since the portType
shouldn’t deal with bindings and headers, but it is a good way to preserve the
information.
(IanR) So, is that enough discussion?
(DaveS) Is anyone opposed to the proposal
None
(DaveS) Any abstentions?
One abstention
Action (Bryan) move to resolved
WSRF106: Not clear how to map faults for SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 Faults
(DaveS) I suggest we create non-normative
examples in the base-faults specs and create an interop scenario which we can
test. Are there any other endpoints around now?
None.
(IanR) I agree we should test it, but we should
go ahead with the change.
DaveS) So the proposal is examples in the
base-faults spec and in the interop doc.
IanR) Seconded.
(Daves) Any objections or abstentions
None
Action: (Bryan) Move to resolved
WSRF107: Consider whether the WS-MessageDelivery
embodiment is needed
(DaveS) What is the status – Tom?
(TomR) It’s still a submission to
WS-Addressing.
(IanR)We should do this at the face-to-face
(Umit)The Oracle people should be there.
(DaveS) So let’s defer this.
WSRF104: Content Rule Applies in Two Ways
(DaveS) The rules are ambiguous about whether
the content comes exactly from the registration, or whether it can be derived
from the content or generated by the ServiceGroup.
(TomM) The proposal is to remove line 453. “Delete
this component must…”
(DaveS) Yes.
(TomM) I second that.
(DaveS) Are there any objections/absentions.
None.
Action: Move
to resolved.
WSRF105: ServiceGroupEntry as a WS-Resource is too Heavyweight
(DaveS) This is complex issue and involves
major changes. Should we open this?
(William) I think we should open it.
(DaveS) Any objections?
None.
Action: Move
to Open
Straggler Roll Call
Close
Closed 13:20.
Next scheduled phone call (16th May) is
cancelled: the face-to-face meeting will replace it.
Summary of actions
(Bryan) Move issue WSRF109 to open
(Spec authors) – review AppNotes
additions document at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/12346/DraftAppNotesIssues63_95_22_52_89.doc
(IanR/TomM) Organise a call on RMD
advertise via the TC web site.
(Bryan) move issues WSRF103, WSRF106, WSRF104 to resolved
(Bryan) move issues WSRF105 to open.