Minutes of the teleconference held on 4th October

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

The minutes are posted here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/9624

and attached as html.

(See attached file: WSRF TC [04Oct04] notes[1].htm)

Sorry for the delay  I had a few days' leave last week.

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
4^th October 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=4804

Approval of minutes from previous telecon (20^th September)

 

See: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/9392

There were no comments on the minutes and no objections to approving them

Other Action Review

(Sam) Raise a new issue to consider an identity mechanism. (Carried fwd from f2f)  Done – see http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200410/msg00007.html
(Glen) Propose wording to resolve issue 20 (Notification message format) to mailing list. (Carried fwd from 23rd August) Carry fwd
(TimB) Propose Primer outline for review next call. (Carried fwd from 23rd August) Done
(SteveG) Propose text for issue 27. (Carried fwd from 23rd August) Modify to be more restful.
(DavidL) Contact providers of requirements to check completeness of Requirements doc, and Provide an appendix to the requirements document which describes use cases. Still running.  Carry fwd.
(DaveS) Solicit input on requirements from GGF/OGSI. Done
(TimB) Put a copy/reference of OGSI Primer on the OASIS Web site. Done
(Bryan) Move issues 15, 16, 21 to ‘closed’. Done
(Bryan) Record resolution of issue 1. Done
(TimB) Send email comment on Steve’s proposal for issue 1.  Done
(Chairs) Continue discussion of issue 24 on next call. See below
(All) Provide feedback for issue 10 and Roger’s email. Done
(IanR/William) Resolve details of October face-to-face Done

Acceptance of New Issues to the issue list.

Is there a new Issue related to lifetime and heartbeat discussion?
See thread: [wsrf] Scheduled termination, heartbeats and dependent objects

(Dave) There was no call for an issue to be raised: the email discussion in inconclusive as to whether an issue should be raised, so more discussion is needed.

Discuss new WS-Resource draft specification.

(SteveG) We need to hammer out the content quickly. We needed to put some definitions of ‘resource’ and WS Resource’s requirements for references. Etc.  The objective was to clarify the term ‘implied resource pattern’.

 

(SteveG) There are a number of issues that the task force could not conclude on, these are documented in the draft:

è      Section 2.3 – definition of WS-Resource

è      Section 2.4 – embodiments

 

(Tom) There are comments about ‘SHOULD’ (instead of ‘MUST’) on properties on lifecycle. Are these still in play?

(SteveG) Yes. There are use cases that we’d like to be incorporated in WSRF. For instance, BPEL has its own lifetime management. 

(DaveS)  We need comments on the properties issue, and the terminology of WS-Resource and cardinality.

(Tom) How will 3.1 and 3.2 (regarding WS-Addressing) evolve as the WS-Addressing spec moves through standardization.

(SteveG) We should fix on the submission document until the W3C working group has produced a result that the community in general can reference.

(William) How do we deal with references which occur in schemas in dependent specs (eg ServiceGroup)

(DaveS) Good question – there may be knock-on effects on other specs, but it’s not directly an issue for WS-Resource.

 

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

(DaveS) In summary, xPath is broken.

(William) Well, I think it’s really a problem with the way namespaces are used.

(William) Option 2 was not popular.

(DaveS) So, we can use option 1 with a health warning, or Option 3 (new namespace declaration.

(SteveG) or we could add a declaration to map the namespace prefix.

(William) Writing bulletproof xPath is possible, just difficult – avoiding namespace prefixes.

(DaveS) So, are we ready to decide: (reads the options)

(Igor) In addition to issue 1, we should send a letter to W3C about the problem.

(DaveS) We need someone to write it.

(DaveS) Called for audible vote.

(DaveS) Conclusion is to go with option 1.

Actions: (William) write resolution text, (Bryan) move issue to ‘resolved’.

Issues review

 

WSRF 10: Review proposal for properties metadata:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200409/msg00014.html

(TomM) The f2f created a requirement to deal with metadata. There were various options, but the recommendation is to create a new document to contain metadata.

 

(DaveS)  Initial values, or valid values was difficult, yes?

(TomM) Yes, if the mechanism required people to manipulate schemas that they don’t own – eg making something read-only.

(Igor) We need the solution to be composable with WS-metadata exchange.

(DaveS) Would this work with metadata-exchange if/when that spec matured?

(TomM) Yes, there are a number of ways it might work.

(DaveS) Are we ready to make a decision on this issue?

(TomM) I think more detailed work on the ‘separate document’ proposal is needed.

(DaveS) That is the option described by “Separate metadata document that is related to the portType”, down to “Pros and Cons”

(DaveS) Are there any objections to this option?

There were none.

Actions: (TomM) to work on details, with help from volunteers.

 

WSRF 1:  Interface Association

 

(TimB) A summary of the situation is here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200409/msg00060.html

(William) Operations aren’t useful as a way to distinguish extended portTypes since two portTypes might have the same-named op and parameters. Using properties is not enough. We need the portType name information.

(Igor) Can this be solved with metadata? This is an extension of WSDL, so it should be done using the metadata mechanism proposed by Tom.

(DaveS) The problem is we want to base WRSF on WSDL 1.1, we can’t wait for WSDL 2.0.

(Igor) If we still have the attribute on the portType when WSDL 2.0 comes into play, it will look messy. It should be separate.

(TomM) We should be talking about interface description, not programming.

(DaveS) I think we need a ballot on this.

(IanR) There is still discussion, perhaps we should let it run for a while.

 

AOB

None.

 

Meeting closed 13:30 est

Summary of actions

 

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

(SteveG) Propose text for issue 27. (Carried fwd from 23rd August) Modify to be more restful.
(DavidL) Contact providers of requirements to check completeness of Requirements doc, and Provide an appendix to the requirements document which describes use cases. Still running (4^th Oct)

(William) Write resolution text for issue 24.

(Bryan) Move issue 24 to ‘resolved’.

(?) Send a letter to W3C about the problem with XPath/namepaces.

(Chairs) Continue discussion of Issue 1