W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2002

[Minutes] 24 June 2002 TAG teleconference (Arch doc, qnameAsId-18, SOAP/WSDL/GET)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:16:06 -0400
Message-ID: <3D179A26.5070204@w3.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org

Hello,

Minutes from the 24 June 2002 TAG teleconf available
at HTML [1] and quoted below as text.

  _ Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-tag-summary
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447


    W3C | TAG | Initial agenda | Previous: 17 Jun | Next:
    1 July

           Minutes of 24 June 2002 TAG teleconference

    Nearby: Teleconference details ? issues list ?
    www-tag archive

1. Administrative

  1. Chair: NW. Scribe: IJ
  2. Roll call. Present: PC, NW, TB, DO, RF, CL, IJ.
     Regrets DC, TBL, SW
  3. Next meeting: 1 July. Regrets: DO, PC, NW
  4. Resolved: Accepted 17 June minutes confirming
     acceptance of both augmentedInfoset-22 and
     xlinkScope-23.
  5. Confirmed status of completed actions

1.2 Completed actions?

  1. IJ 2002/06/17: Add augmentedInfoset-22 to issues
     list. Assigned to Tim Bray
  2. IJ 2002/06/17: Add xlinkScope-23 to issues list.
     Action IJ: Ask TBL to take ownership of this
     issue.
  3. NW 2002/06/17: Call for initial review on www-tag
     of "TAG Finding: Consistency of Formatting
     Property Names, Values, and Semantics". Done
  4. PC 2002/06/17: Convey the desire to the XMLP WG
     that MIME type registration be included in soap
     spec before going to last call.
  5. IJ/PC 2002/06/17: Update finding to ensure that
     it's clear that the registration must be part of
     the document at last call if the WG expects to
     skip Candidate Recommendation. (Revised finding).
     Confirmed changes to "Internet Media Type
     registration, consistency of use" ($Date:
     2002/06/24 22:12:37 $).
     CL: I can live with that, though I predict that
     people will find adding normative parts of the
     spec after last call is not acceptable.
  6. ACTION DO/TB/CL 2002/05/05: Pending XMLP
     response, polish up DO's .1-level draft and find
     out what's going on with XForms
     Done. This action was partly completed and partly
     subsumed.
  7. charmodReview-17: Confirmed that this issue is
     closed. Action IJ: Close this issue in the issues
     list, referring to comments from NW to I18N WG.

2. Technical

     1. Architecture document
     2. Qnames as identifiers
     3. Status of discussions with WSA WG about SOAP/GET
     4. Postponed

  2.1 New issues?

  None.

  2.2 Findings in progress, architecture document (45min)

  See also: findings.
     1. Comments on XMLP actions regarding SOAP and MIME
        type registration. See email to TAG. Report back
        to XMLP WG.
        Action IJ: Ask Stuart to send a thank-you to the
        XMLP WG from the TAG.

2.3.1 Architecture document

  1. ACTION IJ 2002/03/18: Integrate/combine one-page
     summaries (Revised 7 June)
  2. ACTION TBL 2002/05/05: Negotiate more of IJ time
     for arch doc
     NW, TB: We prefer not to close this action item
     yet until further discussion with TBL.

[Ian]

     TB: Next step is to publish this draft of the
     Arch document. It's well-enough cooked that we
     should point people to draft document in
     progress.

     IJ: I can live with more wide distribution if
     we loudly announce that it's a moving target.
     I'd prefer to wait a tad bit longer.
     NW (speaking as NW): I'm inclined to agree
     with TB.
     TB: How about that we agree that this will be
     published by 1 July (with or without
     improvements)?
     IJ: I can live with that.
     TB: Status section should be constructed
     carefully:

    1. This document doesn't represent TAG
       consensus
    2. It does however represent a lot of TAG
       input.
    3. It's a moving target.
    4. [Also, remove the "@@" explanation.]

     TB: I would echo comments made last time. When
     you want to put explanatory text in, put
     examples instead. In 1.2, "An HTTP URI
     identifies a document"
     RF: That was TBL's view. I'm vehemently
     opposed to the idea that the URI identifies a
     document.
     TB: I support RF on that.
     Resolved: Instead of presenting RF's text as
     editorial Note, give two views equal footing.
     Tie to issue httpRange-14 (not exactly that
     issue, but related).
     TB editorial notes:

    1. Hyperlink in scheme property 1 is busted
    2. Principle in section 1.4.1 doesn't have a
       seq #, it should be 5

     IJ: What term should "take precedence" in this
     document? URI or URI Reference?

     TB: Depends on what you're doing. But "All
     important refs identified by URI", not URI
     reference.
     IJ: I will fix this.
     CL: As soon as you have content negotiation,
     you need to know mime type of response before
     you interpret fragment id's.
     IJ: Could someone write a paragraph on URIs
     and URI references?
     RF: Do you want the politically accurate view
     or the technical view?
     TB: I think both are required to understand
     what the right thing to do is.
     (IJ: I will also look at DO's comments on the
     arch doc.)
     Action RF: Write a para on URIs and URI
     references.

     RF: I will try to have this for next week, but
     likely not ready by then.

  Digression into discussion of revisions to URI spec

[Ian]
     RF: I am working on revising the URI spec
     right now, with Larry Masinter and TBL when he
     has time.
     TB: Why are you editing it?
     RF: Integrating corrections, inclusion of IPV6
     format, inclusion of some I18N work (but
     unclear how much). Discussion will take place
     on uri@w3.org. This week's a good time to
     bring forward your burning issues on URIs.

     IJ: Suggest alerting chairs that this work
     going on.
     RF: I will suggest that to Larry. TBL could
     also do this.

  Returning to architecture document

[Ian]
     TB: Important to point out that the term "URI
     reference" conflates relative URIs and
     fragment IDs.

     RF: Additional BNF terms is one suggested
     improvement to the URI spec.
     TB: That's how namespace names got to be URI
     references. DC said we couldn't make up a new
     construct that wasn't in the RFC...

2.3.2 Qnames as identifiers

  1. NW 2002/06/17: Call for one-week review on
     www-tag of QNames as Identifiers. TAG expects to
     confirm completion next week. Done

[Ian]

     NW: I would like to delay this decision this
     week, in order to reply to comments from Rick
     Jelliffe. Rick pointed out that some
     vocabularies use different mechanisms for
     associating URIs with prefixes. The finding
     doesn't consider that usage.
     CL: The schematron use of namespace bindings
     is a type of escaping mechanism.
     RF: I agree with CL.
     TB: The way that schematron does this is
     elegant and good.
     NW: I think what CL makes sense, but that's
     not my understanding of the example RJ posted.
     I thought he wanted to refer to a namespace
     expression, but instead of declaring with an
     xml:ns attribute, he used his own element.
     Therefore, I assumed that when he loaded that
     data model, I thought he wanted the binding to
     be understood even though this is done in a
     proprietary manner.
     CL: It's reasonable to expect a schematron
     processor to understand it, but not a general
     XML parser.
     TB: Rick says "Schematron seems to violate
     recommendations 1, 4 and perhaps 5...."
     NW: The source of my concern is that I thought
     that one intended outcome of this finding was
     to make namespace usage more apparent to an
     XML processor in general. Maybe that wasn't
     the purpose of this finding.

Action NW: Follow up on Rick's comments/proposal by
next week.

2.3.3 Status of discussions with WSA WG about SOAP/GET

  1. ACTION DC 2002/06/10: Send note to WSA WG
     expressing concern about normative binding for
     GET.

[Ian]
     NW: Where are we on this issue?
     DO: I spoke with some of our developers about
     WSDL. Didn't send DC's note to the WSA WG.
     Some discussion last week at end of call.: I
     posted some text today to tag@w3.org about
     problems I see. I think it's not as clear cut
     about what the right thing to do is.

     TB: I'm beginning to think that TBL was right
     that we should be worried about this issue
     (SOAP binding). WSDL has a way to declare a
     SOAP message available through GET. But
     doesn't use the "?" syntax to do so. I haven't
     seen an attempt to harmonize SOAP changes in
     1.2 and WSDL for how to do this.
     DO: There's no example in the WSDL spec to
     show how this could be done. This could be
     done - ask WSDL folks to look at GET example
     in SOAP 1.2 primer.: Also question of schema
     for URI-encoded parameters.
     TB: Maybe we don't have to figure out what to
     do. The WSDL guys are the experts. Does it
     suffice to point out to them that:

    1. Some substantial changes to SOAP 1.2
    2. There doesn't seem to be a way in WSDL to
       declare this (and no examples illustrating
       this).
    3. Ask them to make necessary changes.

     DO: How do you define type information
     associated with a URI query string? Doesn't
     seem related to Web Services (a Web thing, not
     a Web Services thing). Another way is to
     define a mapping between schema and URIs to
     allow you to auto-generate a document that you
     can validate against schema. I think the TAG
     should have an idea about a direction to take.
     In WSDL, the SOAP binding allows you to define
     types (through Schema).: In WSDL, you define
     messages (that use types). You define a port
     type that accepts certain message types. Then
     you define an actual port (and bind concept
     into URI). There's also an HTTP binding in
     WSDL (bindings between types and URIs). But
     you cannot, e.g., say "?stocksymbol=foo". You
     can only say "name value pairs after "?" and
     that's it.: Can't say anything about query
     string. Missing link between contents of a
     query string (what names, and values can be,
     which are required, etc.) and a schema type.
     No way to associate types and content of a
     query stringl

[Chris]
     In other words, query strings are
     unstructured.

[Ian]
     RF: I agree that the [scribe missed] binding
     sucks. It does not do what any reasonable
     programming environment would want it to do.
     Unclear about what data is acceptable, and
     format of data exchanged. There are many
     different ways to do this.
     DO: Should XML Schema folks look at this
     problem? Or HTML WG (since name/value pairs
     part of HTML spec)?
     RF: Doing this is the only reason WSDL exists.
     WSDL defines an interface and translates
     programmatically into an application. If it
     wants to deal with the Web side of Web
     services, should be a way to address
     interface. I agree that the one defined by
     WSDL so far isn't expressive.
     CL: If you have a name value pair list, you
     can go to a flat XML doc easily. If you go the
     other way, it's not as trivial.

[PaulC]
     Note that Noah Mendelsohn has sent a note on
     this topic.

[Ian]
     CL: I suspect Schema WG will balk at being
     asked to address this. You could have
     processors take a query string and convert to
     XML doc (or vice-versa) and use XML Schemas.
     NW: I don't see any reason why XML Schema is
     only way to solve problems like this one.
     Having said that, DO said something about
     "slash-separated" stuff....
     DO: In WSDL, GET binding where URI components
     are separated with slashes. Pre-query string,
     however. SOAP 1.2 primer example used
     information after "?". You can't do types on
     parts after "?".
     PC: Have you seen Noah's most recent response?
     DO: Yes.
     PC: He is saying that this is no longer a SOAP
     1.2 issue.
     PC to DO: Why does the TAG have to do either
     the WSA's work or the Web Services Description
     Language WG's work?: Sounds like WSDL WG will
     encounter same problem and will turn to SOAP
     1.2.
     DO: My reading of the tea leaves is that the
     TAG considers this an important issue. I think
     TAG considers this a high priority for WSDL as
     well. Also educational backgrounder in
     architecture of Web Services.
     PC: I would paraphrase action item "Because
     TAG thinks that this is important, we need to
     ensure that the Web Services groups are aware
     to changes in SOAP and that additional changes
     may be necessary."

[TBray]
     Do we have anyone on the TAG who's also on
     WSDL group?

[Ian]
     DO: After looking at WSDL spec, seems like
     schema on query strings a more general
     problem.
     NW: I have appreciated DO's explanation and
     feel this has changed direction slightly since
     issue arose. I think we need to communicate
     with Web services folks to say "Central issue
     is here."
     TB: I think we should liaison with Web
     Services Description Language WG.
     NW, TB: Let's ping WSDL WG to ensure that this
     is on their radar.
     DO: We can ask them to make this a high
     priority in their schedule.
     TB: I suggest we ask DO to talk informally
     with someone from WSDL WG and come back and
     reassure us and say they're on it. Or ask us
     to send a formal message.

Action DO: Contact WSDL WG about this issue to ensure
that it's on their radar.

Postponed

     1. Internet Media Type registration, consistency of
        use
          1. ACTION DC: research the bug in the svg
             diagram.
          2. ACTION NW 2002/06/24: Create a PNG version
             of the diagram.
             CL: I suggested fixing this so it had no
             errors, then creating a PNG version.
     2. augmentedInfoset-22
          1. ACTION DC 2002/06/17: Talk to XML Schema WG
             about PSVI. Report to tag, who expects to
             decide whether to add as an issue next week.
             Done.
             PC: Since I won't be here next week, I would
             prefer that this issue be on agenda after 1
             July.
     3. RFC3023Charset-21
           + ACTION CL 2002/6/03: Write up the issue in
             the next day or so.
     4. Status of URIEquivalence-15. Relation to
        Character Model of the Web (chapter 4)? See text
        from TimBL on URI canonicalization and email from
        Martin in particular.
     5. If we get here: httpRange-14, namespaceDocument-8
      ________________________________________________


     Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
     Last modified: $Date: 2002/06/24 22:12:37 $
Received on Monday, 24 June 2002 18:18:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:08 GMT