See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 28 January 2010
<Bob> scribenick: Sreed
Bob: I haven't seen any new progress on this
Ram: Eventing - event sync that there will no notifications, model eventing it is push - in case of enumeration consumer pulls
dug: Enumering over ever going queue - waiting for this to pop up
DaveS: first enumeration need to be
generated - waiting
... submitting jobs (current list of jobs) that there is no jobs in
the queue
dug: not necessary empty
Ram: can't process fault enumeration something got wrong with the fliter
gpilz: there is difference b/w badly constructed filter and approriate filter
Asir: will this condition ever occur?
RESOLUTION: 8157 is resolved as proposed - fault defintion will be modified approriately for the enumeration
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8191
<dug> In the case of a Put operation if the XPath expression selects more than one node, the implementation MUST return only the first selected node
<dug> In the case of a Put operation if the XPath expression selects more than one node, the implementation MUST process only the first selected node
Ram: previously XPath 1.0 can evaluate multiple paths dont use Put
RESOLUTION: 8191 resolved with comment nr. 5 in the issue description
<gpilz> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0190.html
gpilz: Reviewed the original proposal - questions how extended WS standardad, WST representation element looked into the optionality. First change WST get response
dug: representation element becomes the complete representation - lloking at the element get response or it is different it is wst representation
asir: I didnt see the conversation having benefits two different wrappers
gpilz: wst representation extend authors they need can use it if not required
Ram: I want to establish the wrapper should be consistent it should serve the purpose for all the operations
gpilz: it is the representaiton of the resource
Ram: can it is be a partial
representation
... people would start inventing their own wrappers
gpilz: most reuse the wst specific to wrappers
gpiliz: change is in wst:Put a representation allowing for an idea dialects - element must be present - base behaviour no dialects - extension authors to resue it or not
Ram: when we do a wst:put full reprsentation now if choose fragment approach in that case I might not be using this representation it means to me representation it is used in full representation
gpilz: wst:PutResponse can get
representation element back - it is optional
... samething for create & creatersponse didnt change
... in case if there is no dialect - extension of base dialect
& there is dialect it shouldnt be
Ram: wst:put second sentense it is fine - assume there are no dialiects working on extensions - just a clarification
gpilz: yes
Ram: If i dont use dialects/extensions can I pass instruction in this representation element
DaveS: put & create are different in this context
Ram: my observation the represntation wrapper should contain the full representation
dug: we need to have the word "full"
Ram: use a dialect then will not have
an element at all wrapper
... same applies to extension
... option send or not send back - question how as I client two
possiblities get back the representation if I dont get back the
repsentation about the update or create operation
gpilz: client doesnt draw the semantic conclusion
Ram: I send representation A & put response A the case is when you dont send me back B what do I conslude as what happened
gpilz: two case, I do a put & get back the representation can I conclude is there a semantic different be/w two - I say no, it might be service can use the response can do any kind of conslusion you can do implict get
Ram: Clinet <-> Service, possiblities get back A, get back B (modified) or nothing the modification proposed case-A get back A will know the representation
Bob: might not the representation in this case
DaveS: B is the same case
dug: easier to jump to the end what
sentense which requires
... everybody understand this
... what sentense is required
Ram: In the case of nothing what I prefere the client to do in this case what ever is suppplied the service didnt make any modidications in the caseB I am not worried
Bob: all the 3 response will have
same information
... current spec - recieveinng A, recievingB & nothing returns
the same
Ram: when there is noting client side the service didnt make any change
Bob: Some thing change the request or something different then asked
Ram: Current model send an a, get back b what specs say send an a service knows as a - dont need to repeat -- client know about this
Bob: what is means it sends back
b
... is b really what it is
<dug> Absence of this element can be interpreted as the update request was successfully processed in its entirety (assuming no intervening mutation operations are performed).
Ram: Client needs a snapshot to work with
dug: I asked for something & posted
dug; is this what should be in spec
<dug> Absence of this element implies that the updated representation does not differ from the supplied representation (assuming no intervening mutation operations are performed).
Bob: question - about this protocol I
presuming the changes might occur processing the state some what
done by the application, we have transfer proptocol using this
protocol in some application - possible change in the applciation
it is transfer itself? what is causing the resoucre representioon
different
... concurrent changes at any time - false sense of security giving
to client - what it did work - service filling buffer by the time
client gets it message (nano seconds) - instance that client
recieves the date it could be totally unreliable
... suggesting if you take the model response gets back extacly the
way it is or diffrerent particular issue mention about the
concurrency - put response in this situation could be harmful
Ram: Using the concurrency argument - I need to know what is do scope at the particiular request
Bob: Processing for all the requests
dug: there is a disconnect - what you get an put response & I think ram is saying on the data is represnted is accurate
Bob: I am sggesting far better than doing that
gpilz: know about the resource as what should do is get
DaveS: data get back will not tell anything as a service I have infact there is no way send you back data where as completly open 7GB to send back there are so many cases cant be sure that empty representation sending hugh amount of data.
Ram: Clarification send something than change the time stamp
DaveS: anything changes
gpilz: represenattion is a full representation
Ram: whether the services are obligated to ship back how do as I client what expectations not seeing any response back at the response
DaveS: many of the errors might havent happened
gpilz: specs says something about this
<MartinC> unless its transactional;)
<MartinC> ws-tx?
<MartinC> +1 to jeff - distributed systems 101
Ram: I am fine with gpilz
proposal
... are there any schema changes
dug; I will take care of it
RESOLUTION: resolved 8180, 8299, 8302 as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0190.html
RESOLUTION: 8273 is deferred until after last call
gpilz: I dont have a proposal for this
Asir: is this related to 8196
Bob: combine 8196 & 8229
gpilz: they might be different
... to use qualified names - request when evaluted resource would
produce different results
Ashok: what is the problem
DaveS: mandate what we have full namespace - full qualified
gpilz: what is the first sentense means
<asir> I like Yves' suggestion!
Tom_Rutt: *: means full namespace so this would be approriate
gpilz: as clinet I need to know that
before consutructing
... what namespace bindings are significant means even I know the
schema should have elements only having determination to do get
different namespace I cant really evaluate need to have complete
snapshot
dug: last sentense we get what is required if that is ok then go for it
Bob: how do we fix the second sentense
gpilz: namespace bindling are significant for all the elements
<Tom_Rutt> If I do an xpath evaluation in an xml tool, if the expressions uses element names which are not namespace qualified, they will only work agains an input document which has that namespace as the default namespace
Bob: the namespace is document in XPath - suggestion
Tom_Rut: XPath has qualified when I am writing namespace prefix
DaveS: Putting some not qualified Tom said it is going to match default namespace I am happy with it
RESOLUTION: 8229 resolved by removing the text in question
Bob: there is no proposal for this
gpilz: I don;t understand it
Bob: any proposal to clarify
RESOLUTION: 8306 is deferred until after last call
gpilz: have we changes the modes siginficantly
dug: we havent decided yet
... I need to work with DaveS & bob on this
RESOLUTION: 8258 is closed since it has already been addressed by other issues
Bob: this is proposal6
gpilz: goto section 7.2
... polices appear in meta data section which would apply to
messages - what the end point policy - a single policy element can
represent metadata second paragraph - Oracle & Microsoft
disagree on it
asir: great progress - there are two points misleading part endpoint subject is defined policy attachement (editorial) & second - set the right expectations using the feature - expectations consume is aware or not aware off
<asir> sorry we are in the weeds :-)
gpilz: works in the case consumer knows what the EPR refferes to anybody gives an EPR something can figure it out
asir: anybody is going to disagree
<asir> here is a suggested first sentence ..
<asir> it is desirable for components that provide EPRs to other components that are aware (or can be aware) of service metadata (such as format of messages and transmission protocol) to be able to efficiently communicate the effective policies
DaveS: goes back to my first question
- spec that doesnt refer the elements policy that doesnt apply in
the constraint - policy into an EPR something can be used it sounds
like me something to do the EPR itself it can be stored in secured
policy
... concern about putting statement EPR must have an endpoint as
subject say that endpoint referes restrict any policy going into
it
Tom_Rutt: I am trying to come up with right word - putting a policy in EPR policy attachement with the endpoin the semantic means policy defintion that policy might impact for example whether to use anynomous/non-anynonous end point - approriate do that enpoint policy attachement it is approriate policy menas effecting the smaller levels - attaching policy entire WSDL using it
dug: I think what you are basically say dont pull policy any message exchange with the EPR
<dug> Policy attached to an EPR in this manner MUST be able to be applied to any message exchange using the endpoint referenced by that EPR.
Ashok: do you agree with it
<Tom_Rutt> Any policy in the metadata of EPR has the interpretation that that policy is being attached at the endpoint policy subject level
<Tom_Rutt> It would not be possible to use this mechanism in epr to attach different policy values for different operations supported by that endpoint wsdl.
<gpilz> Policy attached to an EPR in this manner MUST be applicable to any message exchange using the endpoint referenced by that EPR.
<Tom_Rutt> You would need to get the whole wsdl for such details, using Mex getWsdl
<Tom_Rutt> The definition of a policy assertion type includes the semantics of what happens when you attach that policy assertion at the entpoint policy subject level. The details of "all messages" "all blue messages" "alll response mesages" etc are defined with the defintion of each policy assertion
Asir: we have to define the policy endpoint subject
<Bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0192.html
<dug> it is desirable for components that provide EPRs to other components that are aware (or can be aware) of service metadata (such as format of messages and transmission protocol) to be able to efficiently communicate the effective policies
<gpilz> Note, for this to be useful the EPR consumer needs to be aware of (or be capable of discovering) additional service metadata such as the format of messages and transmission protocol.
RESOLUTION: 7728 resolved with proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0192.html
<Bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0188.html
DaveS: It doesnt have creating
state
... we have consumer & source
<asir> asir as joined #ws-ra
RESOLUTION: 6436 resolved as documented & pending action on editor to complete client-side table
<Bob> Li's comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0189.html
Bob: empty cells not described by the spec
<asir> this is an appendix
RESOLUTION: 6435 resolved as documented & pending action on editor to complete client-side table
<dug> lhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/att-0193/wsfrag-8196.zip
<Bob> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/att-0193/wsfrag-8196.zip
dug: scroll down section-6 & one paragraph changed
Bob: Any objection for accepting the proposal
RESOLUTION: close 8196 & apply the resolution of frag as proposed
Bob: next meeting Feb 9th - All the
remaining proposals to be discused & 2119, any questions?
... 2//10 - snapshot , 2/16 - incorporate issues & last call -
vote
... 2/23 - published
... 3/2 - Open last call issues
RESOLUTION: Publish first public working draft of WS - Event Descriptons (WS-EVD) specification
<Bob> thank you, Fujitsu for hosting