[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [opencsa-liaison] Next LSC conf-call?
Based on the responses received so far, it seems that we will be able to achieve quorum for the LSC meeting on 6/2. In addition, I think the SCA Bindings TC has been waiting for the LSC's resolution on the issue related to 'Namespace for bindings and other extension points' [1]. I think we should have the 6/2 conf-call. I will send out the agenda email through Kavi soon. -- Sanjay [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/opencsa-liaison/200804/msg00010.htm l > -----Original Message----- > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:53 AM > To: opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [opencsa-liaison] Next LSC conf-call? > > > Monday, May 29th is a US holiday and I think we agreed to > cancel the LSC > conf-call on that day. > > For the LSC conf call in the following week (on Jun 2nd), some members > had expressed concerns that the meeting time may confect with their > travel plans for attending the SCA Assembly/Policy F2F in Germany. > > I would like to get an idea of who can (not) attend the call > on Jun 2nd > (at 8 AM Pacific Time / 5 PM in Germany). I can attend this call as I > would have already reached the hotel by the time of this call. > > -- Sanjay > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:46 AM > > To: opencsa-liaison@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: [opencsa-liaison] Minutes of the LSC conf-call on 5/19 > > > > 1. Roll Call > > Simon Nash, Bryan Aupperle, Martin Chapman, Anish > Karmarkar, Sanjay > > Patil, Mike Edwards, Jeff Mischkinsky > > > > 2. Scribe Assignment > > Sanjay > > > > 3. Approval of minutes of 5/12/2008 > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/opencsa-liaison/200805/ms > > g00015.htm > > l > > Approved > > > > 4. Agenda Bashing > > Approved > > > > 5. Issues > > > > a. Namespace for bindings and other extension points > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/opencsa-liaison/200804/ms > > g00010.htm > > l > > Discussion thread: > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/opencsa-liaison/200805/ms > > g00009.htm > > l > > Lot of discussion happened but no decisions were made. See > > below for > > the raw chat log. > > > > b. Use of Schematron in SCA Specifications > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/opencsa-liaison/200804/ms > > g00006.htm > > l > > Discussion on 5/5 conf-call: > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/opencsa-liaison/200805/ms > > g00013.htm > > l > > Did not discuss due to lack of time > > > > > > 6. Next Call Schedule > > May 29th is US holiday > > Jun 2nd may conflict with travel plans of members for > attending SCA > > Assembly/Policy F2F meetings > > Next conf-call schedule to be discussed via email > > > > 7. AOB > > None > > > > > > ----------------------------- > > Raw chat log: > > > > anish: i see the two as orgthogonal > > anish: the two being compatibility and NS > > > > Mike Edwards: These questions alone drive me to favour as few > > namespaces > > as possible > > Mike Edwards: anything else rapidly becomes a nightmare > > > > Martin C: i think last week we said no more then 5 namespaces (ish) > > would be a nightmare > > > > Mike Edwards: > 1 is already a problem > > Mike Edwards: assuming they ever get used together > > > > Martin C: 1 namespace is a problem > > > > Mike Edwards: ;-) > > > > Martin C: for evolution > > > > anish: even if we move in lock step, we'll likely get > 1 > namspace and > > will have to deal with it > > > > Martin C: agreed > > > > Mike Edwards: Just look at WSDL & BPEL - very few > revisions and even > > they cause problems > > > > anish: sanjay, your proposal is interesting (what to do > before 1.1 -- > > keep the same NS regardless of what changes we make, these > are interim > > revisions) > > anish: i remember, during the schema 1.1 days, the W3C CR, PR and > > Recommendation had 3 different namespaces and it was a > disaster, till > > all the tools moved to the Recommendation > > > > Sanjay: yes, the interim versions would just be > > work-in-progress in that > > approach > > Sanjay: the assumption being that we (OpenCSA MS) finish our work in > > reasonable timeframe > > > > Mike Edwards: Anish - it's that sort of thing that worries me a lot > > Mike Edwards: I really don't know who we are helping here > > > > anish: mike, right, that is why i think sanjay's proposal > is promising > > anish: ... we say that interim versions are just that > > > > Sanjay: the early implementors can clarify their support by > > pointing to > > concrete artifacts (e.g. schema files) > > > > anish: ... no change in NS regardless of whether the changes > > in the spec > > are compatible or not > > anish: so, regardless of whether we have fine grained or > lock-step, we > > have one namespace for assembly 1.1 through out it's life > > > > Mike Edwards: yes, everything before 1.1 final publication could > > potentially break stuff from month to month (from CD to CD) > > Mike Edwards: it's not nice, but trying to provide this "changing > > namespace" solution is a bigger nightmare > > > > anish: if we move lock-step then one NS for all specs for 1.1. If we > > don't move lock-step then some 3-5 namespaces for 1.1 > > > > Mike Edwards: I think that we should aim to go "final" with 1 > > namespace > > > > anish: so again, i think there are two separate issues: > compatibility > > and whether we rev NS for versions before 1.1 and lock-step v. > > fine-grained > > anish: i said before that we make compatibility stmt, i > think maybe we > > need to do this only for different final versions (1.1, > 1.2, 2.0 ...) > > > > Martin C: im not sure where/why substitution groups got introduced > > > > anish: mike r, i think u are right wrt SG, but I think that > > is a general > > problem with SG and why maybe it is not a good idea to use them > > anish: substitution group's type is a QName not a list of > > QNames, so it > > has to be only one > > > > Sanjay: michaleR: all OpenCSA TCs use the common namespace > > and use fine > > grained namespaces post 1.1 > > > > anish: scdl has a nice ring to it > > > > Sanjay: For elements used in SCDL file, all SCA TCs use the common > > namespace and use fine grained namespaces post 1.1 > > Sanjay: s: MikeEdwards > > > > anish we're not going to have time to finish this > > > > Mike Edwards: we're going to have to table this discussion > > > > Sanjay: amendment by SimonNash: Whenever an incompatible > > change is made > > to the schema, a new rev of namespace is to be generated > > Sanjay: seconded by Martin > > > > Meeting adjourned due to running out of time. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all > > your TCs in OASIS > > at: > > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr > > oups.php > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all > your TCs in OASIS > at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr > oups.php > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]