Notes from the OASIS WSRF TC
Teleconference
9th January 2006
Agenda
See: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/event.php?event_id=7753
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=7753
The meeting is quorate.
Confirm
minute taker
Tim Banks is taking the minutes.
Approve of minutes of Teleconference on 12th December
See: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/16126
There were no comments and no objections to
approving the minutes.
Call For AOB
None.
Action Review
(Chairs) Set up
a ballot for approval of new AppNotes. See agenda item below.
(Tim/Dave) Execute on/Review
issue 164 resolution. Done
(BryanM) Move issues 156, 158 and
159 to closed. Done
(Tim) Execute updates for issue
157. Done
(IanR) Verify the changes for
issues 157 and 164. Done
(Chairs) After completion of 157
and 164 - Organise ballot for committee specs. Done
(IanR) After the ballot, check
that the multi-line PDFs are Ok. (Issues 161 & 160). Pending production of pdfs. Carry Fwd.
(DaveS) Cancel the face-to-face
via an explicit note to the mailing list. Done
Potential new issues to consider - Bryan
No new issues
Issue resolution – Chair
No open issues.
(IanR) I have checked the execution of issue
162 in the Primer – this can be closed.
Action (Bryan) Move 162 to closed
Production of committee spec PDFs - Ian
(IanR) The Ballot ends today, and there is
currently the required majority.
The CS PDFs need to be produced by the spec
editors.
(Required before we can close issues 160,
161.)
Action:
(Ian) Send mail with instructions for production of CS pdfs.
This is a great milestone. Let’s
congratulate ourselves!
Progression to OASIS standard - Ian
Are we ready to go on to create OASIS
standards? I think they are and propose we go on to have a ballot to decide
whether to submit the current specs as OASIS standards.
(BryanM) WS Addressing is still not a w3c recommendation.
It may change.
(IanR) The WS-A group have said they will
not be changing their namespace.
(TomR) That is the goal, and to-date there
have been no changes, and none are expected, but the process of testing interop
isn’t finished.
(IanR) My understanding is that the thing
most likely to change is the wsdl binding.
Although there is some risk involved in
going ahead now, the risk is low, so we should go ahead now. We are in better
shape than some other OASIS standards wrt WS Addressing.
(TomR) I can live with this, though I
haven’t talked to Fujitsu about a company position.
(DaveS) The namespace is committed, it
won’t be withdrawn.
(TomR) That’s right.
(IanR) The IBM reps don’t expect things to
change.
(TomR) Right- there are no open issues
(IanR) There will have to be a vote, but is
there any objection to setting up the ballot?
(BryanM) No, but we should learn from what
happened to WSDM.
(TomR) I spoke to a w3c team member and it
will take until May or June to get things to full standard.
(DaveS) I don’t want to wait that long.
(BryanM) So are we willing to go to a 1.1
level if WS-A Changes something?
(IanR) Yes, but the risk of that is low and
outweighs the irritation of waiting 6 months for nothing to change.
(BryanM) Well, we gambled on WSDM and lost.
(DaveS) We knew there was a risk for WSDM.
(IanR) The situation is much better now;
WS-A had not got a stable namespaces and there was a dependency on an
incomplete WSRF.
(Kirk) I don’t remember any of the WSDM
feedback being about textual or namespace changes: it was about depending on
things that are not standards.
(BryanM) We are doing the same thing here.
(IanR) Nevertheless, WSDM has standardized,
and WS-A has progressed.
(TomR) WS-A is at ‘Candidate
Recommendation’ waiting for interop tests.
(DaveS) I think we are in good shape to
convince others in Fujitsu. Going forward to a ballot is a motivation to do
that.
(IanR) Is there any other discussion
needed?
(BryanM) I don’t think it’s a good idea,
but we’ve had all the discussion needed.
(IanR) If there are no objections, I will
ask OASIS staff to go ahead.
(TomR) How long is the ballot?
(IanR) It’s a TC ballot and takes 7 days.
We won’t close it by 15th Jan, so we might get to OASIS standard by
the end of Feb.
(DaveS) We probably have 2 weeks week
before the internal TC vote as a preparation for the company vote.
Action: (Chairs)
Organise the ballot for progression to Committee spec
(IanR) Martin Chapman raised the point that
we should have separate votes for each spec, but I think the specs go as a
bundle, and I wouldn’t want to split them now. If one did not go forward, we
should stop all of them in case the successful ones were affected by changes in
the one that was stopped. Also, it will be more complex to have 5 ballots.
However, since Martin asked, so what do others think?
(TomR) I think the real issue is whether
the specs stand alone or are a bundle. We would have to discuss separation if
there was the proposal for separation.
(DaveS) It’s easier to go ahead technically
if they go together. Nobody had a problem with the technical bundling last
time. We should have a single vote.
(IanR) Does anyone want to speak in favour
of having 5 votes?
No-one.
(IanR) So I think that we have had a
reasonable discussion, and the TC has decided to have a single vote.
AppNotes
(IanR) The following "resolved"
issues have been addressed in the latest version of AppNotes
(http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/16005/wsrf-application_notes-1.2-notes-wd-05-jem.doc
) and so can be closed:
WSRF20: Notification message format not
clear
WSRF103: Multiple Service Port elements
legitimate?
WSRF151: AppNotes comments from Ricoh
(Roger) That’s right.
Action: (BryanM)
Close, 20, 103 and 151.
The following SG issue needs to be
addressed per the agreed resolution:
WSRF154: PR Comment – Use of MemberContentRule
(IanR) We should address this before we
have a ballot for Committee Draft, and there are outstanding comments.
(Roger) Yes, that’s reasonable. We have
answers for many of the comments.
(IanR) If we put RMD issues to one side,
what is a good timeframe for cleaning it up?
(Roger) Ok, probably two weeks. Also I need
some exchange with the ServiceGroup editors.
(IanR) Wrt 154, there is some text in the
issues doc that should be directly pasteable.
(Roger) Ok, yes.
When the issues have been resolved and 154
can be closed, we can have a ballot for Committee Draft. Do we need to take it
any further? We stopped at CD for the Primer and, like the Primer, this is non-nomartive.
(DaveS) I don’t have strong feelings, but the
thing that’s different about AppNotes is that it provides implementation
details that refine what’s said in the specs. So, the AppNotes do help with interop.
(TomR) Could we expect more out of the
public review than we have had from internal review? This would weed out more
inconsistencies. Going for a full OASIS standard for a non-normative doc is
another question.
(IanR) Perhaps a reasonable approach is to
go for public review.
(DaveS) This would encourage WSDM to take a
look.
(IanR) So the proposal is to go to PR for Appnotes.
Are you sending, Tom?
(TomR) Yes
(IanR) Any objections?
None.
Action
(Roger) Execute on remaining updates.
ResourceMetadataDescriptor
(IanR) Which of the following issues have
been addressed in the latest RMD draft (and so can be closed)?
WSRF119: What should we name the metadata
container, and does it need extensibility?
WSRF120: Describe rules for overlapping
descriptors in metadata
WSRF163: WSDM Comment: Extensibility needed
in metadata
WSRF155: Incorrect Property definitions in
RMD
(Dan) I think all of these are addressed,
except that for 120, which relates to 118. The movement of text for resolution
of issue 118 is still to be done. The text is still in RMD, but the text which
needs moving is identified.
(IanR) Is it reasonable for Dan/Roger to move
the text and in the next two weeks?
(DaveS) Is this the only RMD issue against AppNotes.
(Roger) Right.
(IanR) So AppNotes may need some
introductory comments about RMD.
(IanR) Is two weeks sufficient? After that
we would need to give the TC time to review the final versions.
(Roger) Ok.
Action (Dan)
Execute on remaining updates
Straggler Roll Call – see Meeting record.
Closed 17:45
Next telecon is 23rd Jan.
Summary of actions
(IanR) Check that the multi-line PDFs are Ok. (Issues 161
& 160). Pending production of pdfs. Carry Fwd.
(Bryan) Move 162 to closed.
(Ian) Send mail with instructions for
production of CS pdfs.
(Chairs) Organise the ballot for
progression to Committee spec.
(BryanM) Close, 20, 103 and 151.
(Roger) Execute on remaining updates to AppNotes,
including transfer of text from RMD for issue 118.
(Dan) Execute on remaining updates to RMD.