W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > November 2005

Re: [fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS

From: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:18:35 +0100
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, member-ws@w3.org
Message-ID: <20051117171835.GJ19340@ender.inria.fr>

On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 04:10:40PM +0100, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> 1) section on Scope talks about message types and message names; I
> believe this is heavily influenced by WSDL 1.1 terminology and it should
> be something like this:
> 
> "For example, a service with an operation using an in-out pattern, where
> the input and output messages are elements amount and tax of type
> xs:double, could have different meanings:"

Agreed.

> 2) The end of the first paragraph of the section on Scope seems to
> mandate that the extension this WG comes up with are to be placed within
> WSDL documentation elements. I think this is an unnecessary restriction,
> as WSDL can easily handle extensions basically everywhere, and it may be
> simpler to be directly on the target element, not within its
> documentation.

This is indeed one open issue in this charter. 
The documentation element being defined as "human readable and/or machine 
processable", it may or may not be a logical starting point for semantics.
One possibility is to leave the decision to the WG rather than deciding
in its charter.

> 3) the section "Out of scope" mentions SOAP Action HTTP header, that
> should be "SOAP action media-type parameter" (SOAP 1.2). Additionally,
> the section might mention Web Services Addressing wsa:action as well
> here.

I have updated the wording about SOAP Action. The rest of the issue is
open for discussion.

> 4) The schedule mentions the first f2f in February 2006 - would that be
> at the Technical Plenary? It would be great if this WG could have a f2f
> at the TP, I think.

It would be indeed preferably at the TP.

> 5) section on "Meetings" says that all record "must be made publicly
> available except for non-technical issues that do not directly affect
> the output of the WG". I think this may be too general, there may be
> issues where making a decision involves sensitive member-only
> information (let's say politically-sensitive issues), such information
> is usually archived in the member-only mailing list. This information
> may directly affect the output of the WG. The decisions must be public,
> of course, but some information might be member-confidential and the
> text in this section seems to prevent that.

The intent is to make all resolutions public. This does not prevent 
technical discussion on a member-only list, I think.
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2005 17:19:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:11:02 GMT