Minutes
Opening
Roll: 25/37 67% of voting members, the meeting is quorate
Agendum+ Discusion of namespace usage
Agendum+ Discussion of Assy spec draft
Resolution: agenda approved w/o
Approval of minutes 2007-10-02
Resolution: M:Henning S:Karmarker Minutes of 2007-10-02 approved w/o
New Issue Assembly-4
New issue introduced by Peter Peshev, the submitter
Resolution: New Issue Assembly-4 accepted w/o
New Issue Assembly-5
Issue introduced by is originator, Henning
Resolution: New Issue Assembly-5 accepted w/o
New Issue Assembly-6
New Issue introduced by its originator, Peter Peshev
Resolution: New Issue Assembly-6 accepted w/o
New Issue Assembly-7
New issue introduced by its originator, Peter Peshev
Discussion with some arguing that this should be a binding issue, others that it relates to conformance
Resolution: M:Rowley S:Charters New Issue Assembly-7 rejected(closed) and referred to the bindings TC w/o
New Issue Assembly-8
New issue was introduced by its originator
Resolution: New Issue Assembly-8 accepted w/o
Open issues
Assembly-1 Is binding.sca always present
PROPOSAL: Add the following semantics to the specifications:
For internal wires, it should always be possible to use bindings.sca regardless of which standard bindings are associated
with that internal wire. In particular:
A> It should always be possible to use binding.sca for internal wires, irrespective of which standard bindings, if any, are
associated with either end of that internal wire.
B> When a component service uses a standard binding (e.g. binding.ws), it should be possible for a client from anywhere (with
right permissions, etc) to communicate with that service using the standard binding, irrespective of whether that component
service is promoted to the domain level or not.
Further debate deferred until Sanjay is present
MikeE:
Prefers that worked examples be included in the proposal
MikeE:
Discusses his proposal that supports use of the current diagrams
JeffE:
Suggests that text stating that other forms are posible be added to the spec
MichaelR:
What does it mean for it to be normative ?(irrespective of whether it is optional)
Martin:
This might be its own conformance point
JeffM:
It is premature to be making this decision. I think we should think about blessing multiple diagrammatic formats.
TomR:
What is the consumer of this diagram? Do we want diagram exchange? Do we need it?
... if we do then we need to support all of that infrastructure.
... I agree that us fools should not rush in
MikeE:
Existing diagrams work well. We need to recognise that we need some form of diagram
AOB
MikeE:
Please pay attention to discussions concerning namespace resolutions
Schreiber diagnostics output
[Delete this section before publishing the minutes]
citation-detection-scribed: Line 66: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'Roll'
citation-detection-scribed: Line 120: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'PROPOSAL'
statistics: Schreiber found 103 input lines
edits: Schreiber found the following text-edit commands:
edits: Line 104: bob: s/we are/the meeting is
command-scribe: Line 41: Bob Freund recognized
command-scribe: Schreiber detected that this section was scribed online
citation-detection-irc1: Line 52: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-4'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 53: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-5'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 54: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-6'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 55: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-7'
citation-detection-irc1: Line 56: Check for possible unrecognized nick 'ASSEMBLY-8'
edit-substitute: command on line 104 succeeded, changed line 66 from 'we are' to 'the meeting is'
edit-delete: Line 104 was deleted
system: Transformer: SAXON SA 8.9
[End of Schreiber diagnostic output]