W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2002

Web Services Description WG April 2002 F2F Minutes

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:27:31 -0700
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C05C05AE8@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Web Services Description WG April 2002 F2F Minutes
Cisco Systems, San Jose California, April 10-12th 2002

[This is the public version of the minutes.  It is identical to the private version at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0060.html (members only) with the updated links to presentations http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0064.html (members only) folded in.]

Attendance
==========

In person:
 Keith Ballinger        Microsoft Corporation
 David Booth            W3C
 Allen Brookes          Rogue Wave Software
 Roberto Chinnici       Sun Microsystems
 Glen Daniels           Macromedia
 Sandeep Kumar          Cisco Systems
 Philippe Le Hégaret    W3C
 Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
 Pallavi Malu           Intel
 Jonathan Marsh         Microsoft Corporation
 Jeff Mischkinsky       Oracle Corporation
 Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce
 Arthur Ryman           IBM
 Adi Sakala             IONA Technologies
 Krishna Sankar         Cisco Systems
 William Vambenepe      Hewlett-Packard Company
 Sanjiva Weerawarana    IBM Corporation
 Don Wright             Lexmark
 Joyce Yang             Oracle Corporation
 Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.

Observers:
 Mark Jones             AT&T (Sub for Radhika Roy and Steve Lind)
 Rahul Sharma           Sun (Sub for Stefano Pugliani - via phone Friday AM)
 Sam Ruby               IBM (Relevant experience to WSDL 1.1 issues - via 
                        phone for the last half of Friday AM)
 Chris Ferris           WS Arch WG - presentation Thursday AM
 Eric Prud'hommeaux     RDF IG - presentation Thursday PM

Phone:
 Mike Ballantyne        Electronic Data Systems (Thursday, Friday)
 Youenn Fablet          Canon (Thursday, Friday AM)
 Tom Jordahl            Macromedia (Thursday AM?)
 Jean-Jacques Moreau    Canon (Thursday, Friday AM)
 William Stumbo         Xerox (Wed PM)

Regrets:
 Michael Champion       Software AG
 Laurent De Teneuille   L'Echangeur
 Dietmar Gaertner       Software AG
 Mario Jeckle           DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
 Jacek Kopecky          Systinet
 Steve Lind             AT&T
 Mike McHugh            W. W. Grainger
 Don Mullen             Tibco
 Johan Pauhlsson        L'Echangeur
 Stefano Pugliani       Sun
 Jochen Ruetschlin      DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
 Jeffrey Schlimmer      Microsoft Corporation
 Igor Sedukhin          Computer Associates
 Sandra Swearingen      U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force
 Jerry Thrasher         Lexmark
 Waqar Sadiq            Electronic Data Systems
 Radhika Roy            AT&T

Absents:
 Mike Davoren           W. W. Grainger
 Tim Finin              University of Maryland
 Dan Kulp               IONA
 Michael Mealling       Verisign
 Daniel Schutzer        Citigroup
 Dave Solo              Citigroup

=============
Wednesday PM
=============

Scribe: Jeff Mischkinsky (jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com)
IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2002/04/10-ws-desc-irc (members only)

Introductions
=============
Scribes
  Wed PM - Jeff
  Thu AM - Dale
  Thu PM - Pallavi
  Fri AM - Kevin
  Fri PM - Allen

Agenda Review
=============
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0046.html
  (members only)

Goals for F2F
=============
1) Complete requirements and use cases for publication and shift towards 
working on draft.

2) Figure out expectations for specifications: fix and/or redesign
- wsdl 1.2 - fix errors, minor revisions/enhancements
- wsdl 2.0 - major revision/next generation of a WS description language

There was a great deal of discussion/speculation of what WS-I might (or 
might not do) with WSDL.

Keith - chair WS-I Profile WG, described a scenario in which WS-I specifies which set of specific features should be used, should not be used, clarify ambiguities within that feature set. WS-I would not take on a "maintenance" role for wsdl 1.x. There was consensus that this would be a good approach which leaves the evolution of WSDL in the hands of the WG.

Glen proposed the following work plan -
  - produce requirements with no constraints vis a vis 1.2 vs. 2.0
  - map reqs to 1.1
  - then determine the size of fit/mismatch
  - then decide based upon schedule/features what to do

Do we want to be schedule driven or feature driven?
  straw poll:  13 - 2

Charter schedule calls for June WD.

Jonathan: Adopt XMLized version of WSDL 1.1 as editor's draft. (I THINK this was approved, but I'm not sure we ever closed on it after taking the following straw polls.)

Straw poll:
  Tier 1: Fix only most severe problems with 1.1
      (3 people in favor)
  Tier 2: Plus potentially modify features that can be done within 
          the schedule 
      (the rest of the group)
  Tier 3: Use 1.1 for ideas but no constraints modifications
      (no one in favor)


Requirements
============
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/att-0030/01-WSRQ0405.htm

Gudgin email - Requirements 4.1 General Draft Disposition
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/0048.html

I've listed the outcome for each requirement proposal.

Adopt R003 Proposal

Adopt R005 Proposal, but chg to MUST

Reject R006 Proposal - REJECT R006 as redundant with R005 and already in Issues List: Issue-clarify-import and Issue-add-include

Modify R007 Proposal - MUST provide detailed examples including on-the-wire Messages.

Adopt R009 Proposal - (note: rejects R009) rationale: not concrete enough, success is not measurable

Adopt R010 Proposal

Adopt R103 Proposal - (note: rejects R103)

Modify R105 Proposal - should support applications that operate on resource constrained devices


Dale Moberg email - re: Requirements 4.11 Security
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/0049.html

Reject R084 Proposal - as too vague

R088 Proposal - straw poll: accept Dale's R088 proposal: 2 accept, 7 reject,
  straw poll: accept Dale's R088 proposal with MAY
       several objections
  "much" discussion ensued
  final consensus - REJECT proposal

ACTION: Sanjiva - add inconsistent use of port and endpoint to issues list Arthur - work on text for a requirement to define equivalence of wsdl document

=============
Thursday AM
=============

Scribe: Dale Moburg
IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2002/04/12-ws-desc-irc  (members only)

Administrivia
=============

JM: How can list and minutes be made more useful? Faster would be better. Is raw text OK? Admin list is for membership issues and IP related issues only.

San: how about a standard question whether anything was confidential?

Phi and San discuss procedures 

San: Postings seem non-technical mainly.

Proposed: send minutes directly to public list and agenda minus phone and irc channels 

Consensus: OK 


JM: Future f2f. Architecture has not approved dates for Sept. 

Under consideration: Sept 9 or Sept 23. DISA hosts in DC. For each week, some are already committed.  Who can't attend the 9th (2).  Who can't attend the 23rd (3) 

Youenn: If the desc group is on vacation during august, 23 seems better... 

JM targets week of Sept 9th for f2f 
JM targets 2.5 days at first part of week 

Next November... 

The 11th is a public holiday here 
Potential hosts...IBM NY, IBM Toronto, Boston, Redmond; JM targets east coast, week of 11th 

JM targets first half of week 

Requirements
============
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/att-0030/01-WSRQ0405.htm

message from Jonathan: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/0039.html 

R024 Proposed reject by JM. Coordination is only requirement on group, not spec (various). 
No objections to rejecting R002 also? None indicated.  No objection removing R024 It's covered by R028 anyway (encoding) 

R070 [Draft, Must, Charter] The WG will provide a mapping to RDF so that the information described can be easily merged with that of other applications. This mapping will be developed with the help of the RDF Interest Group. 

Proposal: Modify this requirement to "It must be possible to provide a mapping from the WS Description language to RDF." Deliverable requires that we state requirement on core spec,not restate deliverable 

Idea is that a "natural" mapping may enhance WSDL structure... 
Arthur: "It should be possible to express WSDL in RDF in a natural way." 
Accept rewording on R070 with refinement to occur at TBD. 

Message 44 on messages and types: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/att-0044/01-Stumbo020409.htm 

R046  [Draft, Must, JS] Must be able to describe Messages independent of specific wire format. 

Commentary: Accept. Note that we rejected R064 which asked that we be able to express the Wire Format of messages. We stated this type of functionality was out of scope. 

R051  [Draft, Must, JS] Be able to describe Messages that include arrays and nested arrays. 

Commentary: Accept. We should use existing type libraries as much as possible. Therefore I would suggest using the Array type defined by SOAP 1.2 and, if needed, extending it. 

R046 apparently accpted 

Roberto add SOAP data model instead of arrays and nested arrays 

San: Would add graphs. 

DB: All features of SOAP data model? 

Both proponents and opponents. 

San: Propose reject R051 as micro manage. 

The requirement to support 1.2 is R028 

Rahul points out that SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 may both need support 

R028 is proposed as subsuming R051, so R051 is to be rejected. 

R028 draft notes Kevin 

JM says we should accept R028 before subsuming R051 

Charter: "The Working Group must describe services accessible via SOAP Version 1.2 defined by the XML Protocol Working Group" and "will make sure that SOAP Version 1.2's extensibility mechanism can be expressed. 

DB Is this "any possible" 1.2 WS? That would be reasonable interpretation. 

JM: "All" may be too strict. 

DB: and section 1.4 of charter says: "It is expected that in the near-term future, Web services will be accessed largely through SOAP Version 1.2"

San: capturing all patterns unrealistic, too many combinations 

Rahul: do not tie to 1.2 

Arthur: any SOAP service should be describable by WSDL 

San: But HTTP binding does not describe anything doable via HTTP.  So, SOAP messages may include things not describable by WSDL 

Glen and San: Fine on "we will do our best to define SOAP 1.2 defined services" 

BTW, re. SOAP 1.1 vs. SOAP 1.2, already captured by issue 32 

Arthur Jeff San: SOAP and WSDL scope issues continue with attempt to clarify intent. 

Glen: is protocol independent WS description needed? 

San: there already is such description 

Glen: extensibility may need, e.g, pointer to exchange pattern 

Arthur: An abstract part and a binding. Programmatic use requires binding info. 

Jeff: Not all things over wire are described at abstract level 

Sanjiva proposal: This WG consider all possible soap features and give them due consideration. 

San: Restate: All SOAP 1.2 features must be considered as WS describable. 

Option 1: WSDL+ will support Soap, but not necessarily all features of Soap. Implication: You might want to use a feature of Soap that you cannot describe in WSDL. 

Option 2: WSDL+ will support ALL of Soap, and possibly more. Implication: You might describe an abstract message that can only be supported by a Soap binding and not another kind of binding. 

Sandeep: some parts of abstract binding might be linked to binding? 

San: pragmatically, options work out the same 

Pragmatically, customers will expect WSDL to be used to describe SOAP 1.2, so the two specs had better work well together. Similarly, WSDL should work well with UDDI. 

Straw Poll: 8 for Option 1, 4 for Option 2 

Roberto: 51 under 100? 

100 is accepted already 

R051 rejected as subsumed under 100. 

R047 [Draft, Must Not, JS] (No requirement to describe semantic content of Messages.) 

Commentary: Reword and Reject. It seems backwards to state something as not being a requirement. How about stating the requirement, "Be able to describe the semantic content of messages." and reject is as out of scope for the current working group? That leaves the paper trail; we made the conscious decision that this wasn't in scope. 

Proposed resolution accepted. 

That is, the wording is changed, and rejected as out of scope. 

R085 [?Modify?, Draft, Should, PP] Be able to describe Messages that include references (URIs) to strongly-typed referents ?to EndPoints?. 

Commentary: Reject. The goal of this requirement is to allow Messages to be composed from existing (and possibly) remote elements (reusability). I believe the intent is already covered by R071. I believe a 'strongly typed referent' could be treated as a portion of a WSDL description that exists in another file (the referred object). 

This requirement comes from the following note from Paul Prescod: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0047.html 

San and Arthur: what does this mean 

Message URI points by reference (and the service to resolve this reference) 

Like a callback... 

Rahul: do we want to support pass by reference? 

Typed reference already possible 

San But it is a second class approach 

Rewording: Should be able to describe pass by reference.?? 

sounds good as reworded 

Should be able to describe messages that include strongly typed references to both values and services. 

SOAP 1.2 changes from SOAP 1.1
==============================
Chris Ferris presentation of Marc Hadley not to be placed into minutes until after Marc does the real presentation at XML Europe.


=============
Thursday PM
=============

Scribe: Pallavi Malu
IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2002/04/12-ws-desc-irc  (members only)

David and Eric presentation on Semantic web and web services
============================================================
URL: http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/0411-ws-f2f-sweb/ 
(Should be viewed with Amaya at the moment, because it is doing some special things with auto-generated pictures in SVG.)

- Goal for the presentation what does it mean to align semantic web 
  with web services
- What is Semantic web? Meaning of the information on the web is 
  explicitly mentioned such that the machine can process it. Easier 
  to find the information. Easier to share and easier to combine.
- What is RDF? Computer language to describe data on the web.
- What is Ontology? Formal specification of concepts and their 
  relationships. The data generator specifies the ontology.
- Eric has done a mapping from WSDL to RDF
- Sanjiva : What's the difference between UML and RDF?
- Dale: Will RDF help solve the WSDL equivalence requirement?
- This group might come up with the RDF mappings for WSDL
- Eric's submitted his suggestion to use URI for top-level element 
  identification in WSDL to the requirements list. Requirement in 
  Foil 37.
- More requirements on foil 39. First requirement part of the charter.

Use Cases
=========

No issues raised. Postponed discussion to Friday. Posted to the list on April 3.

Requirements
============

R096: Reject: Covered by R085

R055: Keith and Sanjiva: Reject: It's unclear what problem we are trying to solve

R053: Sanjiva, Rahul, Roberto: This req means put some meta data on the operation.
Keith, Rahul: Rewrite if we decide to accept. Sanjiva: Reject: Out of scope.
Resolution: Reject: Out of scope

R093: Reject: Incomprehensible by the group.  Igor Sedukhin please explain!

R048: Reject: Duplicate of R099.

R049: Reject: Duplicate of R100

R052: Not covered by R066. R052 is protocol and R066 is transport. Keith we should accept it.
Reword and accept: Must be able to describe binding to protocol other that those described in the specification.

Arthur's requirement on WSDL equivalence posted to IRC. 

Requirement: Define Equivalence of WSDL Definitions 

Requirement: The WSDL specification should define what it means for two definitions of a part 
of a service description to be equivalent. The notion of equivalence must be defined for each definable element, e.g. service, binding, port, etc. For example, if two definitions of a portType only differ in the order that the operations are listed in the document, then they are equivalent. 

Arthur: This requirement is important since in some usage scenarios a WSDL document may undergo transformations, e.g. storage and retrieval in a UDDI registr

Dale: Use case: Two people are offering the same service.  

Arthur Use Case: Notion of equivalence to be used as the basis for digital signature. Need to define equivalence at each level in WSDL.  Its not comparing one web service to another but just comparing the one WSDL to another.

JM: We should document the uses cases for this requirement.

Sanjiva: Equivalent WSDL should give me the same Web service.

Roberto: Define an abstract model and equivalent WSDL should have same abstract model.

New requirement: "Should define equivalence of service descriptions"

R083: Sanjiva Reject: Special case of R071. Accept

R089:  Reject: Covered by R099

R090: Reject: Covered by R041

R025: Reject: Covered by R113

New requirement: "Should be able to specify to abstract polices required/offered by services" Probably will we addressed as extension.

Glen's suggestion remove expected fulfillment version annotations before publishing.

ACTION: Jeffrey Schlimmer to remove expected version annotations.

R113 move to binding section 

R031: Should go in binding.  Change to should, Accept. Remove the comment.

R054: Sanjiva: Change to "Separate, message, MEP and protocol binding." Accept.

R109: Rejected.

R032: Leave it as draft and review in the context of other requirements that we have accepted.

R112: Reject: and add it should be possible bind QOS like policies and mechanism of a service and also covered by the one on abstract policies.

R035: Reject: Covered by R083.

R040: Reword, Reject: Out of Scope.

R042: May support inheritance: Leave it as draft.

R097: Should permit asynchronous message exchange pattern: Accept.

R044: Should, Accept: Related to one on policies.


=============
Friday AM
=============

Scribe: Kevin Liu
IRC: http://www.w3.org/2002/04/12-ws-desc-irc (members only)


08:30 WSDL Nirvana [Keith Ballinger]
09:00 WSDL top issues [Jean-Jacques Moreau, Keith Ballinger]
09:30 WSDL issues discussion
      - WS-I relationship
10:15 Break
10:45 WSDL issues continued [5]
      - Single port type discussion [6]
      - XML-ized WSDL 1.1 spec [7], [8]
12:30 Lunch
Agenda items

WSDL Nirvana Edition
====================
Presentation by Keith Ballinger : WSDL Nirvana Edition
  http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/WSDL_Nirvana.html
- schema is the type language
- it's all about portType: assume SOAP is used; portType has a name which 
  can be referred to
- the port is everything else: port = portType + Policy Assertions + 
  Local name
- Policy Assertions
  - the sum of policy assertions = binding, e.g soap/http + sessions + auditing
  - List of URIs, complimentry
  - These URIs refer to aspects that defined elsewhere
  - can also be queried for at run time
- Recommendations:
  - WSDL1.2 first
  - Nirvana second

Discussion: 

Sanjiva and Keith: what's the real difference b/t NE and 1.1?
  - URI vs QName for Port
  - Simplification

David Booth, Keith, Jonathan: PolicyAssertions can be defined in RDF 

Keith, Glen, Arther, Sanjiva: Global elements: need to clarify syntax for part elements or type with Schema Team

WSDL 1.1 Interop Issues
=======================
Presentation by Keith Ballinger
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/WSDL_Interop_Issues.html

- QName resolution
  - we should be aware of it  and need to make sure people understand what it means
  - It's not a bug for WSDL, in schema  
- Names and Default name
  - input and output have optional attribute for name
  - default name will be given if none is specified
  - under binding, input and output names have to match
  - Sanjiva: these name attributes were put to there to support function 
    overloading.
  - Issue: It's confusing. Keith proposes to reconsider the way to handle 
    overloading, get rid of default name idea
- SoapAction
  - SOAP 1.2 turns it to be optional
- Schemas
  - people use different versions of schema. 
  - WSDL should require support for 2001 recommendation schema
- Encoding
  - confusing, not intuitive
- Bindings
  - has to depend on the extension elements to know what kind of bindings it is, 
    binding name may not have any hint 
  - trailing /: inconsistent

ACTION: Keith B. will write up descriptions for issues discussed in presentations and add to issue lists if not there yet. due date: next conference call.  

WSDL 1.1 Core Spec Issues (Top 5)
=================================
Presentation by Sanjiva Weerawarana: 
  http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/WSDL_Core_Spec_Issues.html

- Remove Solicit-response and output only Operations 
  - WSDL1.1 defines the abstraction but no bindings
  - seems nobody uses it in a successful manner, WSFL uses it, but is considering 
    change to other ways
  - Multiple interpretations
  - event, callback, something services need, etc.
  - Sanjiva Proposal: Remove them from 1.2 , and add first class spec for event 
    mechanism and callback mechanism in future version
- Parameter Order
  - optional for Operation, applicable only for RPC bindings
  - only use is for in&out parts
  - breaks abstraction of portType
  - Sanjiva Proposal: Remove them from 1.2
  - Keith and Reberto indicate that it's used in JAX-RPC and .Net. Agree 
    parameterOrder is not good, but  need better alternative
- Import/Include
  - intent was to model as XSD, but with required location attributes
  - users also want include semantics 
  - is xInclude a better way? maybe. see details at 
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xinclude-20020221/
  - Sanjiva Proposal: many confusions, at best needs clarification
- Messages 
  - should the message concept exist, should it be optional?
  - why not embbedded in portType? Reusability - messages can be reused 
    by many portTypes
  - example: should be able to describe the difference in the following case
  - foo (part1, part2) vs partStruct= {part1, part2 }, foo (partStruct)
  - Sanjiva Proposal: Leave in 1.2, may consider change in future version
- Services and Service Type
  - semantics of <service> is not clear:
  - WG already has a requirement for define service semantics, sanjiva has 
    also put this in the issue list 
  - Sanjiva Proposal:  
    - introduce service type notion - just a name given to a collection of port types
    - define <service> as something that implements a service type
    - required to provide exactly one binding per portType

ACTION: Sanjiva W.  will post descriptions for issues discussed in presentations and add to issue lists if not there yet.  due date: next conference call 


=============
Friday PM
=============

Scribe: Allen Brookes
IRC: http://www.w3.org/2002/04/12-ws-desc-irc (members only)

Use Cases
=========
What to do with use cases?

Arthur - no use case about storing WSDL in a repository.

Arthur will submit a use case for storing WSDL using UDDI.

Sanjiva - who are the use cases for?

JM - required by charter.

JM - audience those who want to know what we're doing, where we are going.  Possible to use as a test suite.

Sandeep - do we have use cases for a web service or for a description of a web service?

Is architecture working on a use cases document?

Glen - yes

JM - more major deliverable for Architecture but for us not useful after we have a spec.

Sandeep - we should have use cases for things we might do after 1.2.

Glen - in general good to have a complete set of use cases to bound what you are building.

Sanjiva - is it a use case to take a programming language artifact and turn it into a web service?

Glen - absolutely, but more for architecture.

JM - take this kind of use case to the architecture group and see if they come up with requirements for us.

Glen - need task force from Desc, Arch, and XMLP to create use cases for web services as a whole.

JM - should publish use cases soon and often even though task force might create more.

Sanjiva - Do we have a publication date?

JM - April 19 - in a week, what ever comes out of this meeting.

Requirements
============

R032 - skip - leave as draft

R042 - also leave as draft

Description of Interactions with a Service

R044 - Context - Sanjiva - alternate text "Should be possible to describe both application data and context data of a service." Accepted

R045 - Reject, out of scope as a feature, in scope as an applications, move to use cases, do not want to preclude being able to do this.  A use case will force this.

R094 - Able to define events.  Asserted that this is covered by R036 but R036 is about one-way, request-response, solicit-response.
Problems with wording since Sanjiva proposed removing solicit-response and notification.  Agreement that R094 is not covered by R036.

New wording "may be able to defined events and other output oriented operations."

Accepted as a May.

R110 - Reject as special case of xxz and add into xxz.

Xxz becomes:

"It should be possible to specify QoS-like policies, for instance, an indication for how long its going to take to process the request, and mechanisms of a service."

Service Types

R106 - Covered by R083, R085.

(Kevin - indicate the R035, rejected yesterday, is also covered by R083).

Rejected, make sure this is a use case.

R057 - Reject pending clarification.

R058 - Accept as Should.

ACTION: ??? Add UPNP example to use cases.

R056 - Reject and introduce new requirement (R056 covered by new requirement).  New requirement - "should be able to group interfaces into a service type (xxw)".

Interface Bindings

R066 - Accept as Must.  Reword - "It must be possible to bind interfaces to transports other than HTTP/1.1."

R028 - Accept as is.

R060 - Change wording - "It must be possible to specify an association between an Interface and one or more concrete protocols and/or data formats."  Accept as Must.

R068 - Change wording - "Description language must support binding of transport characteristics independently of data marshalling characteristics." Accept with Must.

R107 - Rejected, covered by xxz.

R082 - Reject (covered by R081).

R086 - Reject (out of scope).

R072 - Accept as Must.

R073 - Reject, duplicates R071 and R072.

Extensibility

R012 - Accept as Must.

R067 - New wording - "There must be adequate points of extension in constructions defined by WSDL." Accepted.

R074 - Rewording - "It must be possible to indicate whether a given  extension is required or optional." Accepted.

R015 - Reject - prescribes a specific means to fulfill R012, R067.

R027 - Reject, covered by R058.

R043 - Reject, covered by R067.

R050 - Reject, covered by R067.

R059 - Reject, covered by R067.

R095 - Reject, overly prescriptive, covered by R067.

Versioning

R075 - Split in two - for services and for documents - "Must be possible to identify versions of services." Accept.

New requirement
Xxv - "Must be possible to identify versions of documents."  Accept.

R076 - Reject - duplicate of R075.

Mapping to the Semantic Web

Rxxx - All conceptual elements in WSDL messages should be addressable by a URI reference. 

Is it enough to use Xpath and Xpointer?

Need to have a canonical xpath for each element.

One fix.  All names must be unique within the target namespace.

Need to ask Eric to clarify the requirement.

Does Eric represent RDF interest group?
No.  Should we ask RDF interest group for requirements?

ACTION: David Booth ask Eric for clarification and will cc RDF interest group.

Other

R032 - Reject  - covered by xxz, xxy, and R075.

ACTION: Jeffery, Sandeep, Waqar - have drafts ready by next telcon on Thursday 4/18.

ACTION: JM will pursue use case task force with coordination group.


Summary of Action Items
=======================
20020410 ACTION: Sanjiva - add inconsistent use of port and endpoint to issues list Arthur - work on text for a requirement to define equivalence of wsdl document

20020410 ACTION: Jeffrey Schlimmer to remove expected version annotations. 

20020411 ACTION: Keith B. will write up descriptions for issues discussed in presentations and add to issue lists if not there yet. due date: next conference call.  

20020411 ACTION: Sanjiva W.  will post descriptions for issues discussed in presentations and add to issue lists if not there yet.  due date: next conference call 

20020411 ACTION: ???(Jeff Schlimmer? Don Wright?) Add UPNP example to use cases. 

20020412 ACTION: David Booth ask Eric for clarification and will cc RDF interest group. 

20020412 ACTION: Jeffery, Sandeep, Waqar - have drafts ready by next telcon on Thursday 4/18. 

20020412 ACTION: JM will pursue use case task force with coordination group.
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 14:28:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:19 GMT