See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: bns
<JacekK> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20061205
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
<JacekK> ACTION: JacekK to summarize the implementations table into formalized CR criteria [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20061212#action01]
<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/20061212#action02]
<JacekK> ACTION: EricP to create a SAWSDL-independent namespace for attrExtensions [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20061212#action03]
<JacekK> ACTION: Jacek to contact Karthik about issue 32 for him to contribute examples for the usage guide [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20061212#action04]
<JacekK> ACTION: Joel to review Last Call of WS-Policy specs (by Jan 9) [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20061212#action05]
<JacekK> ACTION: Laurent to send some proposal for "partial SAWSDL files" in relation with LC issue 13 [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20061212#action06]
Issue 13: imported schema to included schema a proposal by Karthik
another proposal from Laurent
Karthik: schema can be own by third party, how can probably have an annotation to the external schema
... xpath expression could be used for that purpose
... on going work... can come up with a concrete example later on
Jack: the spec external annotation could be published as a separate document
... we don't have mandate to include external annotation in this document
... but this could have negative impact on the visibility of the document and the external annotation mechanism
carlos: do we know any other similar situations?
holger: how long will it take get through the process if we add external annotations to the spec?
JacekK: excluding the holiday, it will take something like one and half month (i.e., it would delay our CR by that time)
... looking at the mechanism, putting external model reference at schema components would be a better alternative
... the annotation is really on components, not the emlements
<holger> if of interest the pointer to mail msg
<holger> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann/2006Dec/0012.html
sdaume: how effective this approach is going to be? I would not push this approach for the spec
ericP: motivation for external annotation is that the annotated document might change
Joel: people have a feeling like SAWSDL will provide strong control about the life-cycle of a WS
sdaume: depending on different requirements for annotating interfaces, external annotation might be useful
JacekK: xpath is not quite useful as a means of indentifier
... let's see what preference we have
<JacekK> chad, new poll
<chad> new poll
<JacekK> chad, option 1: quick, recommending RDF
JacekK: we can recommend RDF and/or XSLT/XQuery for annotating external files, the first on the component level, the second on the XML attribute level
<JacekK> chad, option 2: outside our spec, pursuing either of existing proposals
<JacekK> chad, option 3: inside spec, pursuing either of existing proposals (delay before going to CR)
<JacekK> vote: 1, 2, 3
<ericP> vote: 1 2 3
<holger> vote: 1 3 2
<caribou> vote: 1 2
<sdaume> vote: 3, 1, 2
<carlos> vote: 3 1 2
<Joel> vote: 1, 2, 3
<brahmananda> vote: 1 3 2
<claudio> vote:3
<lhnocque> vote:3 & 2
<JacekK> vote: lhenocque: 3, 2
<lhnocque> vote: 3 1 2
<JacekK> chad, count
<chad> Question: unknown
<chad> Option 1: quick, recommending RDF (6)
<chad> Option 2: outside our spec, pursuing either of existing proposals (0)
<chad> Option 3: inside spec, pursuing either of existing proposals (delay before going to CR) (5)
<chad> 11 voters: bns (1,3,2),caribou (1,2),carlos (3,1,2),claudio (3),ericP (1,2,3),holger (1,3,2),JacekK (1,2,3),Joel (1,2,3),lhenocque (3,2),lhnocque (3,1,2),sdaume (3,1,2)
<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
<chad> Candidate 1 is elected.
<chad> Winner is option 1 - quick, recommending RDF
JacekK: would RDF option work for everybody?
<caribou> /me notes Laurent voted twice :)
lhnocque: not sure how RDF can be used in this case - I imagine something that takes the original document, the document with external annotations and turns it into an annotated document
JacekK: this can already be done very easily with XSLT, for example
Karthik: agrees with the proposal, RDF would probably work
RESOLUTION: LC issue 13: we will add text that recommends RDF or XSLT for external annotations, nothing too normative
carlos: if we are using RDF, do we imply some how that a property called SAWSDL model reference?
JacekK: we are doing that already
... the suggestation is to add two RDF properties... sawsdl lifting/lowering schema mapping
RESOLUTION: LC Issue 17: we will declare two RDF properties for lifting and lowering schema mappings
JacekK: sent two emails regarding list of SAWSDL features and the CR criteria
... list of features: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann/2006Dec/0011.html
... cr criteria: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann/2006Dec/0013.html
... are we defining features normatively other than this?
Joel: do they cover interoperability concerns?
JacekK: formally it does, W3C does not require two interoperabile implementations
... we can test parsers against some annotated WSDLs
ericP: they seem quite satisfactory from W3C point of view :-)
JacekK: tomorrow close of business we will have stable spec for review
... please review and cast your vote in the questionnaire at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39001/readyForCR/
... no answer implies ''agreed''
... usage guide will be published together with spec
... last remaining agends are left for January phone call