Minutes of the telecon on 20th September

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

The minutes of Monday's telecon are stored here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/9392  and attached to
this email

(See attached file: WSRF TC [20Sept04] notes[1].htm)

Any comments? Let me know.

Regards, Tim Banks
IBM TP Architecture & Technology. Hursley, UK.
Phone: External +44 1962 815639, Internal 245639

Title: WSRF TC notes

Notes from the OASIS WSRF TC Teleconference on
20^th September 2004

 

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=4803

Approval of minutes from previous telecon (23^rd August)

 

See: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/group_public/download.php/8951

There were no comments on the minutes

Proposed: (IanR, seconded SteveG) to approve the minutes.

No Objections.

Other Action Review

(SteveG) Propose text to resolve issue 4. Done

(TomM) Write resolution for issue 10. Done

(Sam) Raise a new issue to consider an identity mechanism. (Carried fwd from f2f)

(Bryan) Move issue 1 to ‘Open’ Done

(Glen) Propose wording to resolve issue 20 (Notification message format) to mailing list. (Carry Fwd)

(Bryan) Review issue 67 with raisers (implementers) in the light of telecon discussion, and leave status as ‘proposed’. Done – issue 67 can be removed.

(All) Discuss potential ‘Using SetResourceProperties’ issue via mailing list.

(SteveG) Can’t this be accomplished by not implementing ‘set’?

(Roger) Right, but I want to explore the issue via the mailing list.

 

(Ian) Add Agenda item to review requirements doc at the next call. Done

(TimB) Propose Primer outline for review next call. (Carry Fwd)

(SteveG) Write proposal for Issue 1 using ‘extends’ on portType. See below

(Igor) Write proposal for Issue 1 using (?)  (Proposal withdrawn).

(Fred) Write proposal for Issue 1 using multiple ports. (Proposal withdrawn).

(Bryan) Move issue 48 to Resolved. Done

(SteveG) Propose text for issue 27. (Carry fwd)

 

 

Acceptance of New Issues to the issue list.

Issue WSRF69: ServiceGroup content element

(Sam) Content should be declared with minOccurs="0"

A fairly trivial issue – xsd doesn’t agree with text.

Action: (Bryan) move to Open.

Issue WSRF70: Bug in ServiceGroup WSDL

(Bryan) Bug in ServiceGroup WSDL – problem was found by a schema validator.
Action: (Bryan) move to Open.

Issue WSRF71: Need normative rules for property composition

(Bryan) We need normative rules to deal with clashes of Properties which occur when portTypes are aggregated.

Action: (Bryan) move to Open.

Requirements document

 

(David) Who has read the document? We included requirements from various sources, and excluded some based on f2f discussions. We have the document about 70% complete – we need to refer to the charter or a use case. Are there any comment or questions? We need more input for the face-to-face.

(SteveG) Should we explicitly ask for input from editors?

(IanR) We could have a more detailed session at the face-to-face.

Action: (David) Contact providers of requirements (eg WSDM - William, WS-N - SteveG, WSRP – Rich Thompson) /editors for feedback.

Action:  (DaveS) Solicit input from GGF/OGSI.

(DaveL) …summarised the document. Do we have a use case document to tie back the requirements?

(IanR) No.

Action: (David) Provide an appendix to the requirements document which describes use cases.

Action: (Tim) Refer to the OGSI Primer from the OASIS Web site.

(?) Will the requirements document be published?

(IanR) It was going to be internal to the TC.

(RichT) This could be useful to identify any unsatisfied requirements when the V1 specs are issued.

Update on WS-Resource document

(SteveG) We are making good process on terminology fundamental to the WSRF specifications. There are some small items outstanding before it’s ready for the wider TC. We should be ready to publish something to the TC by the next teleconference when we can have a short discussion.

(IanR) We will aim to distribute the document by Sept 30^th to leave time for review/feedback.

 

Issues review

 

WSRF15, WSRF16 and WSRF21
Validate that issues WSRF15, WSRF16 and WSRF21 may be closed. The agreed resolutions are available in the draft at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/9245/wsrf-WS-ResourceProperties-1%5B1%5D.2-draft-06.doc with associated WSDL/SXD at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/9246/wsrf-WS-ResourceProperties-1%5B1%5D.2-draft-01.wsdl
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/9247/wsrf-WS-ResourceProperties-1%5B1%5D.2-draft-01.xsd

Proposed: (Ian) that the issues are moved to closed.

No objections.

Action: (Bryan) Move issues to ‘closed.’

Issue WSRF1: Interface association is lost…

Review details of wsrf-rp:DerivedFrom portType extension: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/9079/DerivedFrom%20portType%20extension.doc
(IanR) Where should we put the material from this document?

(SteveG) The WS Resource document?

(Igor) No – that already has a specific purpose. We could have a separate document devoted to aggregation problem.

(DaveS) That makes sense, or it could be WS-RP.

Action: (Bryan) Record that this is the resolution, but we are open as to which document it goes into (WS-RP, WS-Resource, new Document). Also, link to issue 71 to record the reslationship.

(TimB)  What about the problem of operation collision during aggregation. WS-RP says nothing?

(DaveS) The WSRF method is hand-crafting of aggregations.

Action: (TimB) send email comment on Steve’s proposal.

 

Issue WSRF 24: Review proposal for xPath namespace declarations:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200408/msg00007.html

(Jeff) The problem with option 1 is the consistency of namespaces in the lifetime of the xPath expression. Option 3 is feasible.

(SteveG) Could we use 1 and 3 (as an escape hatch)

(Jeff) How does the client know what will happen? Nothing may happen.

(SteveG) Option 3 is awkward for the people that don’t do any namespace mapping.

(Jeff) Yes, it’s ugly, but a namespace can be changed in a digitally signed message.

(Igor) We can’t put caveats around the usage of XML.

(Jeff) There isn’t a problem with proper XML. The problem is with xPath which is typed as ‘string’, however some tools/intermediaries transform XLM without touching things like strings.

(Igor) We could compare with the way other specs deal with the problems of xPath.

(IanR) We’re out of time but need to continue the dicussion.

(WilliamV) : Perhaps this could be considered by the xPath committee?

Action: Continue discussion on next call.

 

Face-to-face in Cupertino

 

(IanR) We need to create an agenda and deal with logistics.

(WilliamV) Hotel/travel details have just been posted.

(IanR) A ballot will help resolve the details.

Action: IanR/William to resolve

AOB

 

(TomM) We need feedback for resolution of Issue 10.

Action: All.

Summary of actions

 

(Sam) Raise a new issue to consider an identity mechanism. (Carried fwd from f2f)

(Glen) Propose wording to resolve issue 20 (Notification message format) to mailing list. (Carried fwd from 23^rd August)

(TimB) Propose Primer outline for review next call. (Carried fwd from 23^rd August)

(SteveG) Propose text for issue 27. (Carried fwd from 23^rd August)

(DavidL) Contact providers of requirements to check completeness of Requirements doc, and Provide an appendix to the requirements document which describes use cases.

(DaveS) Solicit input on requirements from GGF/OGSI.

(TimB) Put a copy/reference of OGSI Primer on the OASIS Web site

(Bryan) Move issues 15, 16, 21 to ‘closed’.

(Bryan) Record resolution of issue 1.

(TimB) Send email comment on Steve’s proposal for issue 1.

(Chairs) Continue discussion of issue 24 on next call.

(All) Provide feedback for issue 10 and Roger’s email.

(IanR/William) Resolve details of October face-to-face