Notes from the
OASIS WSRF TC
Teleconference
3rd April 2006
Agenda
See:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/event.php?event_id=7759
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=7759
The meeting was quorate.
Confirm minute
taker
Tim
Banks is taking the minutes.
Approve minutes of
Teleconference on 20th March
See:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/17334
There
were no comments on the minutes and no objections to approving them.
Call for AOB
None
Action Review -
chair
(Chairs) Agenda item
to decide on Public Comment for AppNotes. Carried from 6th
March. Done
(Bryan) move issue 165 to resolved as per the proposals in the issue
list. Done
(DaveS) Write up the issue to consider byValue resourceProperty for
the MDD and send to the list.
Done (Now issue 174)
(Bryan) Move issue 173 to resolved.
Done
(Bryan) Move issue 166 to resolved as proposed.
Done
(Bryan) Move issue
167 to resolved as amended. Done
(Bryan) Move issue
168 to resolved. Done
OASIS members
ballot results - chair
The
required 15% of the OASIS members was surpassed - 21% of members (72
votes) voted yes, no-one against, and the specs are now an OASIS
standard!
[Big
Round of Applause]
Action
(IanR) Send out editors instructions to rename the documents from
'cd' to 'os'.
AppNotes - Roger
Ballot
to approve CD-02 closed on 25 March and approved the document.
(Roger) I made three changes since the approved version – these
are to make references be active links, to avoid referencing the WSDL
binding of WS Addressing, and to change 'cardinality' to
'multiplicity' in section 3.1.1.4.
(Ian)
Since changes were made since the approval ballot, we need to agree
that they are only editorial corrections and we should approve the
new version as the committee draft. Are there any objections to this?
[None]
Action
(Roger) Post pdf version of the
updated draft to be placed in the TC space as a permanent link.
(IanR)
We need to decide whether we need more public review. Does anyone
want to propose that we have a new public review?
[No-one]
(DaveS)
We have one round of review, yes?
(IanR)
Yes, but didn't get many comments, and the document has since
changed. However, I don't think we'll get much out of a new review –
the TC has reviewed it and we are not intending to advance it to an
OASIS standard. If we make more changes as a result of RMD (for
example) we can reconsider.
(IanR) Are there any objections to leaving the current draft as a
committee draft?
[None]
Primer - Tim
Tim has posted an
updated Primer with the resolution to issue 166 (resolvable
hyperlinks to examples).
(TimB) I also
changed references to anticipate the new names or the standards. We
need to review it and vote on it to be adopted
(IanR) So we can set
up a ballot in a week's time to run for one week.
(DaveS) We also need
to appoint reviewers – who would like to take a look?
(IanR) I will.
(Jem) I will.
Action (Ian &
Jem) Review new draft of the Primer.
Action (IanR) After review,
set up ballot to adopt the new draft of the primer.
Issue
resolution - Chair
WSRF169:
Typos in RMD
(IanR)
Are there any objections to resolving the issue as proposed? These
are all editorial corrections.
[None].
Action
(Bryan) Move to resolved.
Issue WSRF172: Remove
attribute extensibility for ValidValue, ValidValueRange, and
StaticValue
(IanR) Was extensibility
put there for a specific reason, or as a catch-all.
(TimB) We put extensibility opn attributes to allow GoodUntil etc to
be incorporated.
(DaveS) Yes, those are employed on the ResourceProperty attributes.
It might be confusing to put it on metadata – does it apply the
metadata or the RP?
(IanR) Does it causes harm.
(BrannM) I think
it gives us flexibility in the future, for example to say that some
values are valid are when the moon is full.
(DaveS) Yes. I don't see a problem with keeping it.
(IanR) I think this
is a motion to close with No action. Any objections?
[None]
Action
(Bryan) Move
issue 172 to close with no action.
Issue WSRF174: Metadata
Descriptor Instance as Resource Property
(IanR)
This is about having a MDD as an RP. Don't we already have this?
(DaveS) No- this is
about a by-value instead/in addition to a by-reference.
(IanR) Why would one
need this?
(DaveS) This is
about being able to get the MDD using known mechanism in wsrf. With a
reference (URI) the get may or may not work. The uri is maybe
different from the one in the wsdl (the metadata is
instance-specific) and what protocol should be used to get it?
(IanR) So if there
was a deterministic way of consuming the reference, then this would
not be an issue.
(DaveS) Right, but
we don't have such a way, except via http, which loses the Web
services security and other good stuff.
(Dan) One option is
to introduce a getmetadata for wsrf.
(DaveS) But we
already have a way of getting information from a WS Resource. What's
the problem using it?
(BryanM) This could
make the RP doc very large.
(DaveS) In most
cases it would be small.
(Bryan) Not if one
has metadata for every RP, it would be larger than the RP document.
(DaveS) The Dynamic
MDD only needs to describe dynamic MDD – it can be optional.
(Dan) So a separate
operation might be useful for other types of metadata, such as wsdl.
(IanR) This is out
of scope – we only need to tackle the RMD.
(DaveS) Anyway, wsdl
could be available as an RP, too.
(BryanM) Sometimes
the metadata could go in the EPR – at least a reference could
go there.
(DaveS) That works
for static medatada. My scenarios for dynamic metadata haven't been
strongly supported by the Grid community, so uniform access is the
main reason to do it.
(IanR) We are really
concerned with static the metadata
(DaveS) There are
three kinds: static (baked with the wsdl), instance-static -(that's
different from instance to instance) and truly dynamic. The latter is
tackled by the Grid people via dynamic attributes on the
ResourceProperties themselves.
(IanR) What if the
URI were an EPR to a new WS Resource? The GetRP would then work on
the MDD document via the separate WS Resource.
(DaveS) Ok. I think
this would be good.
(IanR) It would be
as dynamic as you like.
(DaveS) And it
separates the metadata from the resource which is a clean model: one
could have metadata about metadata.
(Dan) How does one
get the MDD?
(DaveS) With
getResourceProperty.
(IanR) And update is
allowed, too.
(DaveS) Is anyone
unhappy with the loss of the URI if we replaced it with the EPR?
[No-One]
(IanR) Do we need
any more discussion here?
(DaveS) let's recap:
we need to replace the MDDref URI wth the MDDEPR and state that the
EPR points to a WS Resource whose RP Doc is the MDD. This means that
the resource supports GetRP, and we can guarantee to get it.
(IanR) I think it
would be wise to write the text and review it next time. I am happy
to write it.
Action (IanR)
Write resolution text for issue 174.
(DaveS) We need to
note that we must edit both schema and document, since I think the
two are inconsistent at the moment.
(Dan) I have another
potential issue for RMD. There was once an InitialValues which was
useful, but this seems to have been lost. I propose a new issue to
add InitialValues back in.
(DaveS) Wasn't there
an old issue on it?
(IanR) Dave's recent
review issue mentions 'InitialValues'
(Dan) Right, but
where is it now?
(IanR) Lets have a
new issue proposal on the list and deal with it next time.
Action (Dan)
Email Issue proposal for InitialValues.
The next 2 scheduled telecons
(Ianr) The next
telecons coincide with national holidays in some countries (Apr 17
and May 1). We need to consider whether we should cancel both of
these and ask WS-N TC if we could share the slot on Apr 24.
(DaveS) We are in TC
run-down mode, can we do the two outstanding issues by email and
resolve by ballot and take two calls off.
(IanR) That would
mean the next call is May 15th.
(DaveS) I think we
could survive, and we would be in shape to discuss going for a
committee draft on 15th.
(IanR) Does anyone
object to Dave's proposal?
(Dan) No, it's fine
with me.
[No-one else]
(IanR) Let's say we
need proposed resolutions for two issues in 7 days, and then I'll set
up a ballot to approve them. Then Dan can make a new working draft
ready for a ballot or telecon.
(TimB) We need to
open the issue about InitialValues.
(IanR) Are there any
objections to opening the InitialValue issue?
[None]
Action (BryanM)
Open new issue about InitialValues based on email from Dan.
AOB
None.
Straggler Roll Call – see Meeting record.
Closed
18:00.
Next
telecon is in six weeks on 15th May.
Summary of actions
(IanR)
Send out editors instructions
to rename the documents from 'cd' to 'os'.
(Roger)
Post pdf version of the updated AppNotes draft for placement as a
permanent link.
(Ian & Jem)
Review new version of the Primer.
(IanR)
After review, set up ballot to adopt the new draft of the primer.
(Bryan)
Move issue 172 to closed. No
action.
(IanR) Write
resolution text for issue 174.
(Dan) Email issue
proposal for InitialValues.
(BryanM)
Open new issue about InitialValues based on email from Dan.