Minutes of the Conference call held on September 18th.

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

The Minutes are stored  here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/20474/WSRF%20TC%20%5B18Sept06%5D%20notes%5B1%5D.pdf
and also attached.

(See attached file: WSRF TC [18Sept06] notes[1].html)

Regards, Tim Banks.

Title: WSRF TC notes

Notes from the OASIS WSRF TC
Teleconference
18^th Sept 2006

Agenda

See: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/event.php?event_id=11825

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=11825

The meeting was quorate.

Confirm minute taker

Tim Banks is taking the minutes.

Approve minutes of Teleconference on 26^th June

See: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/19036

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

Call for AOB

None.

New Issues

(Ian) there is one new issue from the RMD PR: Define well-known MEX dialect URI name for resource metadata descriptor.

(DaveS) Strictly-speaking this is not on the public list. It can easily be made public, but it changes the options slightly on how we deal with it.

(Ian) I propose we should open this issue. Any objections?

None.

(Ian) In Brian's absence, I will update the issues list.

Action(Ian): Move to Open.

Issue resolution

RMD PR: Define well-known MEX dialect URI name for resource metadata descriptor

Most recent discussion: http://www.oasisopen.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200608/msg00009.html

(Dave) This seems logical, but we don't have refs in our specs to other specs that haven't gone through standards bodies. I don't want to reopen the argument by introducing a ref.

(TomR) Why can't WS-Mex define the URI? It does so for WSDL and schema.

(Dave) Otherwise a joint profile/pattern for Mex and RMD would specify the URI.

(Ian) The MEX authors' perspective might be that they can't specify all uses of the spec.

(Dave) Right, which is why a pattern might the right place.

(Ian) So, from the perspective of this TC, how do we resolve the issue?

(Dave) We document that it is out of scope, and that the referenced spec is outside of the 'normative' reference. Also, we aren't (so far) obliged to resolve it (since there is no public comment).

(Kirk) So, at the moment, I can use whatever dialect URI I like?

(Ian) And this would be an interoperability problem?

(Kirk) Yes. The WSDM-CIM mapping requires integration of MEX and RMD.

(Dave) So this would be a good place to document the dialect URI.

(TomR) Yes, that would have some industry clout.

(Ian) So the proposal is to resolve the issue with no action, but to observe that the DMTF's WSDM- CIM mapping can specify the URI.

(Dave) Yes,. I propose that.

(Kirk) And I second it

(Ian) Any objections?

Action (Ian) Close with no action.

[Lilly Liu and John Fuller joined the call].

Discussion of WS-RT

(Ian) There are foils on the web site here:http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/download.php/20325/WS-RT%20and%20WSRF.ppt

(Kirk) WS Transfer is being re-written to accommodate extensions to the WS Transfer Operations, but supplying the MustUnderstand header and using dialects and new child elements. WS-RT introduces a new Get operation, and this goes a little beyond the extensibility mechanism. Will a portType have to support both - a kind of overloaded Get?

(Ian) The text is trying to accommodate today's clients using WS-RT with no body. The op returns the whole resource representation. Also, there are endpoints that accommodate the dialects. We propose using the same action URI so that a client can send a Get message to either a new or old old resource and always get at least the behaviour of the old resource (per WS-Transfer, ignoring the fragment expression in the body). With the new spec, there are 2 ways to retrieve the entire resource representation - using the old WS-Transfer with no body or using the new version with a wsrt:Get body containing no wsrt:Expression.

(DaveS) It sounds miraculous.

(Kirk) I find the business of the two Gets curious.

(Ian) Yes: Curious and Miraculous. We know this will improve when the spec goes to a standards body and we don't have to worry about interoperability with old clients.

(DaveS) The Servicegroup, BaseFaults and RMD parts of WS-RF aren't covered in the WS-RT roadmap. Are there any plans to address this?

(IanR) We haven't managed to agree on Basefaults, and ServiceGroups haven't come up on the agenda.

Straggler Roll Call

See Meeting record.

AOB

(Ian) Next telecon is potentially in two weeks, but depends on new RMD comments. We will cancel if there are none.

(Dave) When does the RMD PR end?

(Ian) There is at least another month.

Closed 5:45.

Summary of actions

(Ian) Open new Issue to describe 'Define well-known MEX dialect URI' and move to Closed, no action.