Minutes of the conference call held on Monday 17th October.

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

The minutes are stored here
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/14807/WSRF%20TC%20%5B3Oct05%5D%20notes%5B1%5D.pdf
 and attached

 (See attached file: WSRF TC [17Oct05] notes[1].htm)

Regards, Tim Banks.

Title: WSRF TC notes

Notes from the OASIS WSRF TC
Teleconference
17^th October 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=7747

 

The meeting is quorate.

 

Confirm minute taker

Tim Banks is taking the minutes.

 

Call For AOB

None.

 

Approve of minutes of Teleconference on 3^rd October

See: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/14807

 

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

 

Action Review

(Dan) Post revised draft of RMD Carried Fwd from July 25th.
(Dan) Write new text for resolution to issue wsrf 118.(cut/copy/paste for RMD to go in AppNotes)  Carried Fwd from June 27^th. Carry Fwd.

(DaveS) Is there a new RMD?

(IanR) No. There have been comments on an old version.

(DaveS) Do we have text to wsrf118?

(IanR) No, but it should be deriveable from the RMD spec.

(DaveS) We’ll deal with this below.

(SG Editors) Include resolution of wsrf153 in CD spec. Done

(Ian) Move issue wsrf153 to resolved. Done

(DaveS) Did anyone verify this resolution?

(IanR) Yes, I did.

Action: (Bryan) Move to closed.

 

 

New issues (Dave)

WSRF154: PR Comment  Use of MemberContentRule

(DaveS) This is a PR comment about i) the need for clarification of the ContentRule, ii) Discovery & Implementation iii)  Mapping the content to the member  – are there any objections to opening it per the process?

None.

Action: (Bryan) Open the issue

 

WSRF155: Incorrect Property definitions in RMD

(DaveS) I think we should wait until we have a new RMD document before we do this.

(Ian) There is an RMD document, and this is a straightforward typo modifiability/mutability swapped.

(DaveS) So we should make it an issue. Any objections?

None.

Action: (Bryan) Open the issue

PR02 status (Ian)

PR02 review finishes on 28^th October. We only need to consider changes since PR01.  Also, we were thanked by the OASIS staff for producing a change log – the first TC to use this process.

(DaveS) Are there any public comments? It seems fairly quiet.

(IanR) Nothing so far.

Representation at Builconn conference November 9^th

(DaveS) Is anyone available to promote WSRF/WS-N/WSDM?

(SteveG) I have interacted with Obix already, but I can’t get permission to travel to Amsterdam.

(IanR) Anyone else?  There is a foilset already prepared….

…. [no-one else volunteers]

( DaveS) We should reply to OASIS that this isn’t possible.

(IanR) Ok, I’ll do it.

Progress Report on AppNotes and Primer

(RogerM) There has been some limited review of a new version (not via the list) and the results are being fed in ready for upload this week. Some issue resolutions are being incorporated (eg 151) and the document is shrinking.

Action: TC members to review the AppNotes when posted and be ready to discuss at the next telecon.

(TimB) The Primer is very close to being finished, we need review/feedback for this also.

Action: TC members to review the Primer when posted and be ready to discuss at the next telecon.

Straggler Roll Call

Issue Review

WSRF154: PR Comment Use of MemberContentRule

(DaveS) This is in three parts: first the membership rule about interfaces. The example in the issue is wrong (it’s the qname of the portType that’s needed, not the operation) so we clearly need a non-normative example to illustrate the rule for interfaces.

(TimB) Will we need to submit any changes for public review?

(IanR) We need to re-review if there are ‘substantive’ changes.

(DaveS) So, we should simply add a short example, which should not be a substantive change.

(IanR) Is the text really unclear?

(TimB) We will have an example in the Primer.

(IanR) I think the text is clear at line 185.

(DaveS) So we should put something in the primer only.

Anyone second that?

(TimB) Yes

(DaveS) Any objections?

None.

(IanR) We should also respond to the comment to say that lines 298-300 in the pr02 spec say that the qname should be that of the portType.

Action: (ByanM) Move part i) to resolved

(DaveS) The second part is about whether a service implements the interface. I think this is a QoS issue for the SG implementation and not for WSRF to answer.

(IanR) This isn’t a question about the WSDL location, is it?

(DaveS) No – this is a challenge for the SG implementer, but it isn’t an interface issue.

(IanR) I agree that this is a non-issue; the members declare which interfaces they implement, and that is sufficient.  The response should be that this is out of scope.

(DaveS) Any objections to that?

None.

(DaveS) The third point is about the relationship between the Content of the SGEntry and the SG Content itself. The schema for Content takes an RPDoc or xsd:Any, so the example in the comment works, even though the elements would not be in an RP document.  The commenter seems to think the content has to be an RP Doc. It reflects some confusion in understand in the spec, but doesn’t point out any error.

(IanR) I agree. The schema says the Content can be RPDoc (min=0, max=1) and xsd:any (unbounded).

(BryanM) Isn’t there a wrapper element for the RPDoc?

(DaveS) Yes, but there is no RPDoc wrapper in the first example.

(TimB) But that element is optional.

(DaveS) We could add examples in the Primer or Spec.

(IanR)I don’t think we need to go that far – we have a non-normative example, we don’t need to exemplify all of the spec options. The spec is correct and this is a non-issue.

(DaveS) Is there a seconder for that proposal?

(TimB)Yes.

Any objections

None.

Action: (Bryan) Move to resolved

WSRF155: Incorrect Property definitions in RMD

(DaveS) This is typo. We should adopt the proposal in the issue.

Any objections?

None.

Action: (BryanM) Move to resolved.

AOB

(DaveS) Is there any other business?

(IanR) If we have no futher issues by next telecom, we can vote for a committee spec. The process is that once all PR comments have been addressed, the ballot needs to be set up by the TC administrator (an OASIS Staff member). Submitting as a standard is a separate step which might wait for interop testing etc.

(Pete) This ballot is done by OASIS staff because it requires a super-majority vote and OASIS can prepare publicity for the new standard.

 

Closed 12:50

 

Summary of actions

(Bryan) Move issue wsrf153 to closed.

(Bryan) Move issues 154 and 155 to open.

(TC members) to review the AppNotes and Primer documents when posted and be ready to discuss at the next telecon.

(Bryran) Move issue 154/i, ii and iii to resolved

(Bryan) Move issue 155 to resolved.