1. Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items
2. Agenda review, and AOB
3. Approval of 25 Apr telcon minutes [2]
Minutes approved with no objections and will be published.
4. Review action items [3]
ACTION: DavidO: Send updated version of DAG0010 to the public list and say that
it was accepted [PENDING] [1]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T19-44-54
DONE
ACTION: Chris (and Zulah): send proposed wording to list and take it to
email [PENDING] [2]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T19-45-02
DONE
ACTION: Zulah to determine the validity of the previous action item [3]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T19-45-59
DONE
ACTION: Hugo to insert Joe's requirement into the draft (if I can do it in time
for Chris to send pub request) [4]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T20-11-25
DONE
ACTION: Hugo to fix typo in Zulah's name [5]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/04/25-ws-arch-irc#T20-13-28
DONE
There are no outstanding action items.
5. Status
- F2F update (logistics update[6])
The hotel info page is up. The registration page should be up by Monday.
- WS-CG report (Chris)
Semantic web working group will review and send comments on SOAP 1.2 to XMLP.
Want WSAWG to review WSDWG requirements doc. Need to find some volunteers.
Reviewed f2f losgistics arrangements.
- Editors
Thanks to the editors for hard work in getting draft of requirements out.
David Orchard has made a first draft of scenarios document available. People should review.
Daniel published an editors' todo list--separate editorial and substantive comments.
- USTF
Team formed. Will establish weekly telecons. WSDWG discussed how they could participate
and will ask to have some people on the task force.
- Issues
Each week will go through a brief update of issues.
Deal with 2 formal issues "a priori" and "should soap envelope include target uri" via
email. WG is highly encouraged to discuss. Hopefully "champions" will emerge to take
ownership. If no one volunteers, Chris may randomly pick YOUR name.
5a. November f2f
Chris reported that he hadn't heard a lot of dissent to the proposed dates.
No objections voiced, so the november f2f will be nov 13-15 (WSDWG will be Nov 11-13).
Location not yet set. Will be on east coast. Possibilities include washington DC,
ottowa, boston. Several companies have volunteered.
6. Balloting process review
Review of balloting process[4] for strawpoll of draft status
items in Requirenments document[5]. Are we all clear on what is expected?
Chris reviewed process for voting on accepting draft requirements.
For each issue Y means yes you agree; D (w/ your comment) means you disagree;
L (w/ optional comments) means agree, but would prefer a minor change.
(The resend mail was to point out that the top level number was incorrect.)
To respond:
EACH individual item requires its OWN individual email repsonse with the subject
as specified in the instructions.
Send the emails (one per item) to [email protected]. (You can look at themail archive.)
Chris will sort and count the results by email subject line.
Is two days per block adequate time?
Discussion about various options. Chris will send out ballots every 2 days, people will
have 3 days to respond.
The first (security) ballot due date extended until fri 3 May 2002 COB.
Note: you can vote "early" if you like.
7. Schedule
Chris discussed the proposed detailed schedule [7].
David expressed concern that the schedule is very tight and aggressive.
Chris said that if we want to be in position to recommend creation of new WGs to the
November AC meeting we have to meet this schedule.
Hugo asked what the proposals for new WGS would be based upon. Chris said:
a. draft requirements doc
b. scenarios
Proposals would essentially be the scope sections for new charters.
David Orchard pointed out that there won't be "an architecture" in place before we consider
recommending new WGs. May need flexibility to "adjust" the new groups' charters if we
later discover that we got something wrong.
No objections to posting this schedule for review on our member page provided that we
surround it by the appropriate caveats that this is a target schedule.
We will review comments on the posted schedule next week.
8. Issues processing document
Document is PRIMARILY for benefit of issues submitted from outside the group, either
from other W3C sources or the public. Need to track our responses so that we can later
show that we adequately dealt with the issues raised by the public.
Note: Members of the WG MAY also submit a formal issue if they feel it is necessary to
create a formal issues record. But we don't want the formal issues list to turn into
a todo list. In most cases, the normal working process of the group should be adequate.
Call ended a few minutes early. Have a nice weekend.