AGENDA: ------ 1. Welcome, Roll call & determination of quorum 2. Note taker appointed 3. Approval of agenda/agenda bashing 4. Approval of minutes from last meeting (or suggested changes if any). 5. Action items from last meeting: - Peter Brown Proposal? (TBA - pending review of last minutes) 6. Editing Team report (Matt/Don) 7. Continue with Comments disposition - start with issues list #16 (courtesy of Don), items with PD's. - if time, other items for revision. 8. Other business ATTENDEES: --------- Matthew MacKenzie Adobe Systems* Duane Nickull Adobe Systems* Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton Al Brown FileNet Corporation* Francis McCabe Fujitsu Limited* Rex Brooks HumanMarkup.org, Inc. Don Flinn Individual John Harby Individual Joseph Pantella* Individual Tom Merkle Lockheed Martin Ron Schuldt Lockheed Martin Sameer Sharma Lockheed Martin Ken Laskey Mitre Corporation Gregory Kohring NEC Corporation* Wesley McGregor Public Works and Government Services Canada Clarence Russ US Department of Homeland Security Prasanta Behera VISA International Oleg Mikulinsky WebLayers, Inc. MEETING NOTES: ------------- AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome, Roll call & determination of quorum - There was no quorum on call AGENDA ITEM #2: Note taker appointed - Joe Chiusano to take notes AGENDA ITEM #3: Approval of agenda/agenda bashing - The following changes were made to the agenda: * Peter Brown cannot attend; decided to substitute Peter's proposal discussion with Frank McCabe's comments instead AGENDA ITEM #4: Approval of minutes from last meeting (or suggested changes if any) - There were no suggested changes - There was a pending issue (Sally/Peter e-mails) that may have necessitated an addition to the minutes; no addition necessary, per Prasanta - ACTION ITEM [Prasanta]: Ron Schulte's last name mispelled in minutes - Prasanta to change - There was a question about who counts toward quorum; only voting members count toward quorum - There were several inaccuracies noted on the public TC membership list regarding member status - for example: * Prasanta's status says "Voting Member - Probation" - should not * Ed Chase's status says "Voting Member" - should not - ACTION ITEM [Matt]: Clarify member statuses in Kavi and correct as necessary; - ACTION ITEM [All]: If anyone feels that they are incorrectly represented then send e-mail to Matt - It was also noted that new members are listed as "applicant" - Duane discussed rules for becoming a member, including the status of "Applicant" AGENDA ITEM #5: Action items from last meeting - Concept map (Duane): Still in process - Reviewed Frank's proposed dispositions * Frank had 2 sections: (1) Policies and Contracts, and (2) Semantics * Policies and Contracts - dispositions have not changed much since he submitted them previously; tried incorporating comments * Semantics - had about 40 comments; * Semantics section needed rewriting, so Frank rewrote it * Given the rewrite, many comments are no longer relevant - need to be re-examined * Frank called out behavioral aspects of a service and real-world effects of a service in the new Semantics section * The previous layered approach was trying to do architecture inside semantics - was not appropriate. Instead, Frank now called out what semantics was really about: Semantics are really about the relationship with the real world, and the relationship to descriptions * Some info from previous version (e.g. context) was dropped * Some other things were dropped because alot of comments indicated unclear wording (e.g. content on vocabulary) * Automony section was a placeholder - this was dropped as well * Biggest new item: Concept of a "real-world effect". Frank included this because the mediation gateway between electronic/cyber world and real world is key; need to make sure it is part of semantics. * He hopes that the new section is clearer and more useful * He also captured what ontologies are about * There are also limits on the nature of a description - people should be aware of this. One limitation: It is not possible to describe anything that is interesting, completely unambiguously. These limitations discussed in new section 1.1.2.2. * Duane guided folks to "Revised Section 2.3 on Semantics" in Documents folder * There is also ""Revised Section 2.2" on policy and contracts * Joe asked if anyone could give an example off the top of their head regarding service context > Frank: Simplest example is transactional context, in which a service is used for accepting credit card information > That is, the service cannot be used in isolation - must be used with purchasing a book > Therefore the service can never be invoked by itself - must be part of another transaction > Ken: Need-to-know (security) to see/execute something is also an example of context * Ron Schulte: Believes context is an integral part of the real-world effect - should be added back * Frank does not believe that the same service can mean 2 different things in different contexts * Ron believes that real-world effects and context are tightly connected * Frank agreed to discuss more about how to incorporate * ACTION ITEM [Frank/Ron]: Discuss how to incorporate context back into Section 2.3 - Ken asked if it would be possible to have a draft .08 before F2F? Then commentors can review and determine if comments were adequately handled * Duane: Would like to table this - will discuss under "Editor's Report" agenda item * Ken: Need to take into account ramifications to other sections (i.e. do I - Ken - need to update anything?) * Ken: How can we carry issues forward and have the commentors verify whether or not they are still issues? * Matt: Having a draft .08 will cause confusion and would be difficult. We can create an .07A version and make it clear that comments should not be made against it (only against .07) - it would be a preliminary version of .08 * Duane: There can be no more comments against .07 - comment period has closed * Ken: With version .07A, I can go back to an .07 comment that I originated and see whether or not .07A takes care of it, or if comment should be carried forward * Duane: We need to be very clear at top of document that .07A is not for comment - it is for comment disposal * Matt: If something were fixed in .07A, commentors would have to indicate that the comment is withdrawn * ACTION ITEM [Matt]: Create version .07A of spec - Back to Frank's PDs - issues 27-190; * Joe expressed a concern in his earlier e-mail responses that many dispositions did not indicate where change was made - instead, only a URL to an updated spec chapter was supplied * Joe also pointed out that his e-mail responses were not reflected in Monday's spreadsheet. Duane indicated Joe's response e-mails (6/19 and 6/20) * Duane suggested that we point to Joe's e-mail in "Disposition" column. Joe felt that this would not be a good solution - populating the disposition column may incorrectly imply that the issue should be closed * ACTION ITEM [Don]: Update spreadsheet to include Joe's comments * ACTION ITEM [Frank]: Include a sentence explaining disposition for each issue that relates to his sections - Prasanta: The latest spec has different section/line numbers than previous version, and there are no section/line numbers in PDs; this makes it difficult to locate pertinent section/lines * ACTION ITEM [All editors]: Update PDs to include new section/line numbers * Frank also suggested using track changes and putting issue # in a comment within the text. Duane clarified that you preserve comments in a PDF when you create the PDF - Duane: PDs from Frank will require more work - will work on them in between meetings AGENDA ITEM #6: Editing Team report (Matt/Don) - Don clarified that We have 11 "Pending Reviews" - i.e. issues with PDs that both the editor and commentor have agreed upon * Duane: we should accept all of these * ACTION ITEM [Don]: All agreed-to dispositions should be closed - John Harby suggested that for those issues for which a PD is "Clarify Term", why not just list in one place the terms that are clarified, instead of including individual dispositions * Ken suggested that it is best to take care of it issue by issue, for clarity * John is fine with that - Rex had a comment about line numbers, but it was taken care of in the earlier agreement - Frank suggested that we add an extra column called "Responses" - Don is ok with that * ACTION ITEM [Don]: Add an additional "Responses" column to spreadsheet - Wes commented that there is a mismatch between concepts and semantics for certain definitions - i.e. does not agree with some of the definitions * These will be worked out at the F2F * Duane: We need to address definitions also, but for now we are concentrating on "easy ones" - Duane asked if Joe or Rebekah was going to attend F2F * Joe stated that it was a possibility that Rebekah would attend - he has to get the status - Duane asked Don for the the current status statistics for issues * Don will work this out, and wil report them in a few minutes AGENDA ITEM #7: Continue with Comments disposition - The TC started reviewing with issues list #16, starting with issue #61 (Prasanta's) * This issue is editorial * Ken: There was something missing in the figure. There are other items against this figure - Ken will take care of it * Ken: There are more substantive issues regarding that section - he working on updating it. He will update the figure if it is retained * PD is: "Ken working" > ACTION ITEM [Don]: Update issue in spreadsheet to reflect above PD * Ken also needs an editable version of this figure from Duane > ACTION ITEM [Duane]: Provide Ken with editable version of figure - Don came back with statistics: * Pending Review: 11 * Pending Action: 105 * Open: 52 - Next issue: #62 (Prasanta) * Ken described the minor wording issue * Issue has to do with the question: Is service interface part of a service description, or separate? * Frank: Separate > There may be >1 description of a service interface (views) > For example, there may be features that are seen on a need-to-know basis, but which are not mentioned in certain descriptions * Ken will work this issue (#62) > ACTION ITEM [Don]: Update issue in spreadsheet to reflect above PD - Wes: What you see each time may be variable - this gets back to context - Next issue: #63 (Prasanta) * The issue should not have been in there * Issue is closed * ACTION ITEM [Don]: Update issue in spreadsheet to reflect above status - Next issue: #64 (Prasanta) * Ken: Update is not needed - it is implied that the service exists (do not need to say "if the service exists") * Should place colon after "must know", and semi-colon after each item * Issue is closed * ACTION ITEM [Don]: Update issue in spreadsheet to reflect above status * For Matt (from Duane): Wherever there are lists, ";" should be used after each list item, except the last item * Also, optionally use "and" or "or" as needed for clarity - Next issue: #66 (Prasanta) * Ken read passage: Assumptions, constraints, and policies need to be more than text statements. Must be machine-processable * We need a Web-based rules language and structure * A constraint is input to rules engine, the Rule processes the input and gives result (valid/non-valid) * Duane: Be careful about being too concrete * Ken: These are constrained text statements that require precision in the way they are constructed > There will be a mechanism to evaluate these - they must be formulated in the proper way (more than just text) * Ken will update to reflect new wording * Issue is closed * ACTION ITEM [Don]: Update issue in spreadsheet to reflect above status - Duane: We will continue dealing with comments up to Vancouver meeting - Duane asked if we should have another meeting next Wednesday morning, to continue with comments > The TC decided no, due to 4th of July holiday - Rex asked how much a full day telecon would cost, if he can get a NIST sponsorship * ACTION ITEM [Duane]: Will find out price - Don: Have we closed all the pending reviews (11 total)? * No disagreement expressed so far * Duane: Close them - TC members have had almost 2 weeks to comment on them by now * ACTION ITEM [Don]: Close all pending reviews AGENDA ITEM #8: Other business - Ken made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Rex - There was no opposition - The TC adjourned