Notes from the OASIS
WSRF TC Teleconference on
18th 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=4805
Approval of minutes from previous telecon (4th October)
See: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/9624
There were no comments on the minutes and no objections to
approving them.
Other Action Review
(Glen) Propose wording to resolve issue 20 (Notification
message format) to mailing list. (Carried fwd from 23rd August).
Carry Fwd
(SteveG) Propose text for issue 27. (Carried fwd from 23rd
August) Modify to be more restful. Done.
(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 (4th Oct). Feedback has been
received. David appealed for use cases to support the requirements.
(William) Write resolution text for issue 24. Done
(Bryan) Move issue 24 to ‘resolved’. Done
(?) Send a letter to W3C about the problem with XPath/namepaces.
Carry fwd to next call and review Malaika note: Action: Igor to review.
(Chairs) Continue discussion of Issue 1 See below
Acceptance
of New Issues to the issue list
None.
Review
proposed agenda for Oct F2F
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200410/msg00059.html
(IanR)…reviewed the agenda. Also, there are two new requests
have been received:
è Steve Graham to demonstrate WS-RP on mobile device.
è Proposal to discuss which side of the fence (WSDM or WSRF) aggregation/iterator
should fall. This is also known as issue 65.
(IanR) Is there anything else that needs to be covered?
(DaveS) This may come up on the interop discussion, which
will reveal whether the specs are ready, but we need a schedule/roadmap for
when the specs might be finished.
(IanR) Other items should be emailed to the list.
Issue review
Reference material: Issues doc: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/9679/WSRF_IssuesList.doc
WSRF1:
portType aggregation
Last e-mail discussion: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200409/msg00060.html
We also need to consider WSRF71 at the same time: Need normative rules for
property composition.
(DaveS) There are two parts to this: what info is needed
(immediate parent or transitive closure and where the info is kept (portType
attributes, resource property, metadata)
(IanR) There has been no further email since the last call
when we nearly voted on this issue.
(?) Should we wait until the metadata proposal (Issue 10) is available before
deciding this?
(Bryan) Issue 71 (copy/paste of properties) is also related
to this.
Action: Discuss at the face-to-face.
WSRF 4: GetResourceProperty for doc with xsd:any
Last e-mail; http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200410/msg00053.html
Proposed: to adopt the resolution documented:
No objections.
Action(Bryan): Move issue 4 to ‘resolved’
WSRF27: GetAllResourceProperties
References: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/9574
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200410/msg00049.html
Shall we deal with the ‘put’ proposal together with Issue 27
(get) or as a separate issue?
(Igor) There are two questions for the ‘put’: what to do
with parts of the replacement that are missing (they should be deleted?), and
the validity of the new document. Validity could be checked in the application
or in the infrastructure.
(IanR) It would be better to treat this separately since
there are some complications.
(DaveS) And there are possible interactions
Proposed(Ian), seconded DaveS: To adopt the ‘getResourcePropertyDocument’
operation which returns a the single document approach.
No Objections.
Action(Bryan) Move Issue 27 to ‘resolved’
Action(Igor): Open SetResourceProperties document issue.
WSRF 25: Update fault
messages should be more informative
(IanR) I will take the action to create the schema.
(Tom) Why is this needed? Couldn’t a client retrieve the
Properties document and find out what’s wrong?
(DaveS) It’s useful to know so that the client can recover
from partial completion.
(IanR) The response could be an optional implementation- clients
can make use of it.
(TimB) But being optional leaves the clients in doubt about
what the server can do – they must cope with the worst case
(Fred) It’s always possible that a client has to recover
from not getting a response message.
Action (IanR) to write proposal to the list, based on
the discussion.
WSRF26: No fault defined
to indicate invalid values
(DaveS) My instinct is to drop this.
(IanR) This was captured out of the interop meeting before
the TC started up.
(TomR) This seems towards sending the maximal information,
using bandwidth unnecessarily.
Proposed (DaveS), seconded (Alan) This issue should be
dropped.
No Objections
Action:(Bryan) Close with no change
WSRF49: Describe the
format used for the pseudo-schema
(MartinC) This was discussed at the f2f, we just need to
resolve the text.
Action: Text editors to decide which proposal is best
and apply it consistently.
AOB
None.
Meeting closed 13:25 est
Summary of actions
(Glen) Propose wording to resolve issue 20 (Notification
message format) to mailing list. (Carried fwd from 23rd August).
(All/DavidL) Review requirements Doc: (4th
October). David appealed for use cases to support the requirements.
(Chairs) Add to the face-to-face agenda a discussion of:
Issue 1: portType aggregation and associated issue 71: Rules for Property
composition.
(Bryan): Move issues 4 and 27 to ‘resolved’
(Igor): Open SetResourcePropertiesDocument issue.
(Ian): Write proposal for issue WSRF 25 more informative
fault messages.)
(Bryan): Move issue 26 to ‘closed’
(Text editors): Decide which proposal is best to resolve
issue WSRF49 (Pseudo-schema language in the specs) and apply it consistently.