W3C

Semantic Annotations for WSDL WG teleconference

9 Jan 2007

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
AS, CB, EP, JK, JF, JM, LH, PM, SD
Regrets
BNS, CP, CV, LF, MK, RA, TV
Chair
JacekK
Scribe
Amit

Contents


<scribe> scribe: Amit

Observers: Karthik Gomadam, Ajith Ranabahu

approval of last telcon minutes

<JacekK> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20061212

minutes for the last telecon approved

action item review

<JacekK> ACTION: Eric to upgrade the SPDL page for SAWSDL readers and then work things out with the Usage Guide [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action01]

Eric still working on his action item

<JacekK> ACTION: EricP to create a SAWSDL-independent namespace for attrExtensions [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action02]

<ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2007/01/attrExt namespace document for http://www.w3.org/2007/01/attrExt#

<JacekK> ACTION: Joel to review Last Call of WS-Policy specs (by Jan 9) [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action03]

WS-Policy review discussed

Karthik: policy could enrich semantics of annotation

Joel: interpretation can be independedent

ModelReference pointing to policy description-- does it enhance?

Ajith: policy assertions may have effect on semantics of service

Laurent: can we have use case where policies modify semantics?

John: policy adds nonfunctional requirements, keeping separate would be good

Jacek: without concrete use case, defer the discussion

Joel: orthogonal descriotion, interpret independetly?

Karthik: would not be good to say policy does not provide formal semantics

Jacek: let us get concrete use case, 12th is target
... if we do not add "Policy description should not affect semantics", would there be a problem in the future?

Laurent: until we have concrete story, keep "should not"

<Zakim> laurenth, you wanted to wonder that behavioral descriptions are semantics, not policies

<laurenth> we definitely need a use case

Amit: all types of semantics (data, fundational, Qos/non-functional, execution) need to be captured

<laurenth> agreed

Jacek: "should not" allows it to be broken if necessary

Amit: effect is on SAWSDL, not on WS-policy

Jacek: Joel to send comment to Policy

RESOLUTION: Joel to send his comments, policy modification of semantic annotations is on agenda for future, if we get use cases

<JacekK> ACTION: Joel to send his comments (clarified) to WS-Policy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action04]

issue 32

Jacek: skip agenda item because we have no input yet

issue 33

Jacek: also skip, same reason

planning of implementation report

<JacekK> ACTION: Jacek to start an implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action05]

Amit: we have completed implementation of SAWSDL4J for WSDL1.1

Ajith: what about implementation for WSDL2.0?

Jacek: we will need a WSDL2.0 implementation as we depend on that W3C Rec (to be)
... should we be faster than WSDL2.0, we cannot be more than one step ahead of it in the process

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Jacek to start an implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Joel to send his comments (clarified) to WS-Policy [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action04]
 
[PENDING] ACTION: Eric to upgrade the SPDL page for SAWSDL readers and then work things out with the Usage Guide [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action01]
 
[DONE] ACTION: EricP to create a SAWSDL-independent namespace for attrExtensions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action02]
[DONE] ACTION: Joel to review Last Call of WS-Policy specs (by Jan 9) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070109#action03]