The XQueryX standard (XML
Syntax for XQuery 1.0 (XQueryX))
became a candidate recommendation in November. The reference should be:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xqueryx/ Let's use this reference.
Heiko
-----
Heiko Ludwig, Dr. rer. pol.
IBM TJ Watson Research Center, PO Box 704, Yorktown, NY, 10598
hludwig@us.ibm.com, tel. +1 914 784 7160, mob. +1 646 675 8469
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/
Jim Pruyne <jim_pruyne@hp.com> Sent by: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org
01/11/2006 11:03 AM
To
GRAAP-WG <graap-wg@gridforum.org>
cc
Subject
[graap-wg] minutes from 1/11
telecon
Attached...
--- Jim
Notes from Jan. 11 Teleconference
---------------------------------
Attendees
---------
Wolfgang Ziegler
Heiko Ludwig
Asit Dan
Jim Pruyne
Philipp Wieder
Agenda Items
------------
- GGF: No schedule has been posted yet.
* One session on spec. updates prior to GGF16
* Two more sessions of implementation presentations, continuing
discussions from presentations from previous GGF.
- OGSA F2F:
* Jim will plan to attend for a couple hours
* Will there be any feedback on the spec. through this? Philipp:
perhaps not as they look only to consume based on last F2F.
- Wolfgang provided feedback to GGF Office on status of deliverables
as requested by Joel.
- Comments:
- Missing references: Philipp to do this in the next day, and
re-upload
- To Remove: SNAP
- Also to update to the proper link for various specs.
- Flexibility of WS-A. comment:
- 1. We don't think the current WS-Agreement prohibits what
he's
suggesting, but we also don't define it.
- 2. Basically DoS attack concerns. Agreed, that this
might be a
nice thing to be able to do, but we consider
it outside the
scope of WS-Agreement. Many of these
issues are true for any
web service, and not specific to WS-Agreement,
though how one
searches the possible agreement space is somewhat
more
relevant.
- 3. We specifically restricted to 2 parties to avoid specific
remediation of multiple parties. That
is, who specifically
is at fault when there are more than two parties
with specific
responsibilities to one another. Therefore,
we limit WS-Agreement
to two party.
- 4. Agreed that a library service is useful, but it is outside
the scope of WS-Agreement. For signing,
and authentication, other
general practices for web services should
be applicable.
- Discovery of compatible agreement parties
- There is some hint as to the valid languages in the template
based on the definition of namespaces. That
is, an initiator
should be sure that all namespaces declared in the
template are
understood. However, this seems like a good
point, and the
suggestion seems valid. Our current thinking
is to consider
this in a next version based on some experience with
the current
version. It may be that some practice like this
will emerge
which we could incorporate in a future version. The
reference
to a similar use in wsrp does help us to see a model
that might
be used.
- "sorry for the late post" to be addressed on future
call due to
time constraints.
- "several comments"
- 1. Version will come from reference, and as needed in the
specification name. Philipp to update
along with references.
- 2. Already has been addressed. Philipp to double
check.
- 3. Heiko to investigate status.
- 4., 5., 6., 7. Are covered by the "Missing references"
comment.