OASIS Web Services for Remote Portals (WSRP) TC

WSRP TC Call Minutes Thursday, September 19th 2002

WSRP Members

William Cox, Bea

here

Adrian Fletcher, Bea

here

Gino Filicetti, Bowstreet

not here

Davanum Srinivas, CA

not here

Peter J Quintas, Divine

not here

Alan Kropp, Epicentric

here

Nigel Ratcliffe, Factiva

here

Aditi Karandika, France Telecom

not here

Madoka Mitsuoka, Fujitsu

here

Takao Mohri, Fujitsu

not here

Angel Luis Diaz, IBM

not here

Carsten Leue, IBM

here

Rich Thompson, IBM

here

Charles Wiecha, IBM

here

Ron Daniel Jr., Interwoven

not here

Jon Klein, Reed-Elsivier

not here

Adam Nolen, Reed-Elsivier

not here

David Taieb, IBM

not here

Petr Palas, Moravia IT

not here

Mark Cassidy, Netegrity

here

Michael Freedman, Oracle

here

Mike Hillerman, Peoplesoft

not here

Khurram Mahmood, Peoplesoft

not here

Susan Levine, Peoplesoft

not here

Sasha Aickin, Plumtree

here

Brian Dirking, Stellent

here

Alejandro Abdelnur, Sun

here

Dave Clegg, Sybase

here

Mark Rosenberg, Tibco

not here

Eilon Reshef, WebCollage

not here

Tim Granshaw, SAP Portals

not here

Yossi Tamari, SAP Portals

here

Stephen A. White, SeeBeyond

not here

Andreas Kuehne, -

not here

Eric van Lyndegraf, Kinzan

here

Joe Rudnicki

here

Andre Kramer

here

Prospective Members

Shumakher Gennady, SAP

here

Richard Cieply

here

WSIA

Ravi Konuro

here

Monica Martin

here

Rex Brooks

here

Accept WSRP Minutes from 3rd Face to Face Meeting

Minutes have been accepted.

Motion to allow the chair to place resolutions up for e-mail votes

Topics to vote on will be put up on the mailing list after Tuesdays prioritization meetings for voting until the Thursday of the following week.
The e-mail votes will be counted before the meeting and votes made in the call will be added.

How do we handle voting on the TC Specification ?

Charlie and Thomas will get Karl Best's advice, an easy option in any case is for the few WSIA members who are not also WSRP members to join WSRP.

Review schedule proposal and agree on further schedule

Schedule updated as follows:

Sept 27th

Spec Editors provide draft 0.7 for review

Oct 7th

TC has provided all comments on 0.7 draft

Oct 20th

Spec Editors provide draft 0.8 for review

Nov 4th-8th

4th F2F: Resolve remaining tech. issues
TC by best effort raised all tech. issues for 1.0 Spec

Nov 22nd

Editors finish draft 0.9
Put under change control

Dec 16th

TC provided all editorial comments on draft 0.9
Last additional tech issues raised by exception

Jan 7th

Finish draft 0.91 reflecting edit. comments from TC
Put draft 0.91 on WSRP Web Site to get feedback

Jan 13th-17th

5th F2F: Finalize 1.0 TC Specification
If time permits discuss 2.0 direction/concepts and compliance test kit
Location: West Coast Host: tbd

Jan 31st

Release of WSRP 1.0 Technical Commitee Specification

We'll put the 0.7 and all following drafts on the WSRP web site. We put the issues list on the WSRP web site as HTML.

WSRP Implementations

"Release of WSRP 1.0 Open Source Impl. at Apache" taken out of WSRP schedule since it is separate from the spec and no to do for the TC.

List companies doing implementations on the web site, the Apache Open Source implementation will be one of hopefully many.

Issues to be discussed / resolved as of Rich's note:

(#1)
Yossi: chapter 1 to verbose, we teach people to much, spec audience knows what portals are
Thomas: we could just refer to white paper in the spec introduction instead of having it entirely in there
Mike: insert appropriate spec oriented introduction instead, add explanation of what entities, sessions and stuff we are talking about
Bill: Introduction should remain for clearance. 2 Parts of spec considered not to good. Howevere the tutorial stuff may be moved out. Stuff like models, concepts, introduction should remain in spec.
Thomas: Consensus seems to be that we should rewrite the intro of the spec to be more technical than the whitepaper

Decision: Rewrite intro of the specification so that it is not identical with the whitepaper but more technical as needed to understand the spec.

(#7)
General: need more clarification on session scopes we define.
Rich: we should defer it until spec updated and clarified, so people can fully understand this issue

(#10)
Rich: handles invariant, while states change.
Currently people need to take a deeper look into it. Defer decision to next meeting.

(#16)
Rich, Andre, Mike: might be useful but we should defer it for 1.0. Put this on the issue list. Vote next thursday whether to defer it or not.

(#42)
Editors need to add clarity to the next draft. Defer decision until then.

(#44)
Mike: prefer sessionExpires, this is more cleaner.
Rich, Thomas, Carsten: refHandleExpires reflects change to refHandle better
General: not a really big topic.
Vote on next thursday.

(#45)
General: need more discussion. Defer decision after things become clearer.

(#48)
Rich: not piece of metadata in V1.0 (unassigned) Relation of Portlets, Portlet Instances and POEs/CCEs ran out of time. Discuss this next week