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

Web Services Description Working Group 2002-04-04 (real!) meeting minutes

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:15:30 -0700
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C05C05AFC@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
[The minutes at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/0043.html were mistakenly titled 2002-04-04 minutes.  They should instead be titled 2002-03-28 minutes, as noted in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/0111.html. This message contains the real 2002-04-04 minutes follow. Sorry for the mistake.]

Web Services Description Working Group 2002-04-04 meeting minutes

Full minutes:  http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/04-minutes.html (members only)


- David Booth, W3C 
- Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems 
- Glen Daniels, Macromedia 
- Mike Davoren, W. W. Grainger 
- Youenn Fablet, Canon 
- Dietmar Gaertner, Software AG 
- Martin Gudgin, DevelopMentor 
- Mario Jeckle, DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology 
- Tom Jordahl, Macromedia 
- Jacek Kopecky, Systinet 
- Sandeep Kumar, Cisco Systems 
- Philippe Le Hégaret, W3C 
- Steve Lind, AT&T 
- Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP 
- Pallavi Malu, Intel 
- Jonathan Marsh, Microsoft Corporation 
- Mike McHugh, W. W. Grainger 
- Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle Corporation 
- Dale Moberg, Cyclone Commerce 
- Johan Pauhlsson, L'Echangeur 
- Stefano Pugliani, Sun 
- Radhika Roy, AT&T 
- Jochen Ruetschlin, DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology 
- Waqar Sadiq, Electronic Data Systems 
- Adi Sakala, IONA Technologies 
- Jeffrey Schlimmer, Microsoft Corporation 
- Igor Sedukhin, Computer Associates 
- William Stumbo, Xerox 
- Jerry Thrasher, Lexmark 
- William Vambenepe, Hewlett-Packard Company 
- Don Wright, Lexmark 
- Joyce Yang, Oracle Corporation 
- Prasad Yendluri, webMethods, Inc. 
- (partial) Sanjiva Weerawarana, IBM Corporation 

- Michael Champion, Software AG 
- Laurent De Teneuille, L'Echangeur 
- Dan Kulp, IONA 
- Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon 
- Arthur Ryman, IBM 
- Dave Solo, Citigroup 
- Sandra Swearingen, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force 

- Mike Ballantyne, Electronic Data Systems 
- Keith Ballinger, Microsoft Corporation 
- Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software 
- Tim Finin, University of Maryland 
- Michael Mealling, Verisign 
- Don Mullen, Tibco 
- Krishna Sankar, Cisco Systems 
- Daniel Schutzer, Citigroup 
- Aaron Skonnard, DevelopMentor 

Agenda items
1. New members
Allen Brookes (Rogue Ware Software) joined the working group. Welcome.

2. Approval of minutes.
March 28 minutes approved.

3. Review Action Items
ONGOING 2002.02.14. Jonathan Marsh. Map Face-to-Face meetings 6 months in 
Jonathan: any offer for November f2f? 
DONE 2002-03-07. Philippe. Set up authors with CVS. 
  Waiting for other requests 
  Send him an e-mail for any problem concerning CVS, JigEdit... 
ACTION: Editors to get CVS requests to Philippe. 
ONGOING 2002.03.07. Keith. Discuss open content model design. 
DONE 2002.03.21. Sandeep. Take a first pass at providing snippets for use 
  cases in 2.1 messaging. 
DONE 2002.03.21. To all. Please register for Apr F2F or send regrets 
  The register is closed
  Sandeep: It becomes harder and harder to accommodate for new F2F members,
  but try to do as much as possible 
DONE 2002.03.21. Sandeep. Send F2F dinner invitations to arch/desc group 
  Sandeep to send an e-mail with the reservation details 
  Sandeep: in the process of finalizing the dinner and making reservation 
DONE 2002.03.21. Laurent/Jonathan. Investigate June F2F hosting in Paris 
  Thanks to L'Echangeur and Canon for their proposals 
  Thanks to L'Echangeur for hosting the F2F 
DONE 2002.03.21. Jeffrey. Make sure we are converging on 3 categories of 
RETIRED 2002.03.21. Youenn. Ask Jean-Jacques if he is willing to provide 
  Youenn: Jean-Jacques is interested but may not have the time before the
RETIRED 2002.03.21. Jeffrey. investigate the possibility of an abstract 
  model (but without promising to make one himself) 
  Jeffrey: Jean-Jacques and I will not have time before the F2F 
  No new volunteer for the abstract model 
PENDING 2002.03.21. Editors (Jeff/Sanjiva). Do presentations of AM draft and 
  top 5 broken items in WSDL 1.1 at the F2F (yourself or delegate). 
  Jean-Jacques has partially collected issues and set up the list. 
DONE 2002.03.28. Waqar. Prepare proposal for publishable version of Use Case 
  Doc by next weeks telcon. 
  Waqar: sent a mail with a url of the new proposal in the private mailing 
  Waqar: ask for clarification of the use cases by the authors 
DONE 2002.03.28. Jeff. Generalize R067 and move it to the extensibility 
  Jeff: done on the new 03/04/2002 draft 
DONE 2002.03.28. Philippe. Come up with clarification of text + a use-case 
DONE 2002.03.28. Jeff. Massage 69 and 66 together and see about coming up 
  with better wording 
ON GOING 2002.03.28. JJM+Glen. Work towards new req about extensions 
  Glen: work on progress 
  Jeff: add a new req (R113) about SOAP extensions with jonathan's wording 

4. FTF Agenda Review
Jonathan: FTF agenda = work on use case, req + first working draft
For any addition or detail, please send an email 

??: Will there be some time for the top 5 issues ? 

Jonathan: Jean-Jacques is collection the top 5 issues => talk on theses issues on FTF 

5. Assign Requirements champions for FTF

Jonathan: Volunteers for requirements sections? It is not a big task, about 20-30 minutes per section

Presenting the reqs to the wg and recommending decision on status and priority on reqs

Rewording and detecting duplicates

  4.11 Security, Dale 
  4.1 General Requirements, Martin 
  4.5 Messages and Types, Bill (by e-mail, not present at the FTF) 
  4.12 Mapping to the Semantic Web, Jonathan 
  5 Requirements from other W3CWgs, Jonathan 

Jonathan: For any comment on reqs please send an e-mail

6. Use Cases
Jonathan: At the f2f, we want to publish reqs and use cases docs

Jonathan: We will publish the last two docs for all people to review them if nobody raise an issue

Waqar: We need help from use cases authors to clarify them 
If use cases are not enough clear, we will have to remove them

ACTION: Everyone to read the use cases and send e-mail raising issue for the FTF.

Jonathan: for all submitters to use cases, clarify them
There will be opportunities to revise use cases after publishing them

7. Requirements
Jonathan: new version of the reqs from Jeff in the archive

Jonathan: Let's start from thread 91 

Higher-level support for SOAP extensions/modules

Jeff: Requirement R113 is on section 4.3 of the new draft

Glen: R113 seems good 

Jeff: Req R025 is more general than req 113 and seems to overlap 

Jonathan: Glen idea was that we can specify or require mechanisms, security for instance through url

Glen: We should describe how to support extensions 

??: We may require that an input is not crypted but the output is

Glen: If encryption is used, this particular extension must be on.
There is a requirement for the message headers 

Jonathan: Should we require R113 to be a MUST or a SHOULD 

Jeff: MUST is good to me 

Jeff: Does the WSDL desc will say explicitly: you must include a header with a particular uri and values on the headers must be these values?

Glen: It is not our job but the jobs of SOAP extension/bindings people 
WSDL should refer to these specs but not rewrite them 
The problem is how you can get to the true description of the messages 
You should not and cannot describe these extensions, as they may change 

Jonathan: Do we accept R113 as a MUST?

Jeff: Do we expect this in the 1.2 draft? 

Jonathan: As extension maybe 

Jonathan: 113 is accepted and should be fulfilled by extensions mechanisms 

SOAP 1.2 requirements simplifications

Jonathan read R083 

David: we should rephrase or reject it 

Jonathan: I do not see the implications of this req 

Jeff: I agree, it is a little bit imprecise. 
This req is about separating types of messages and things like uri 
It might be covered elsewhere

Kevin: See a req that I posted: req R035 

Jeff: The problem with R035 is that it can say a lot of things 

Jonathan: We should maybe rephrase it more precisely 

ACTION: Jeffery (?) to rephrase R083

Jonathan: next req is R087 

Jonathan: it might be redundant with R065

Jeffrey: the first part of R087 is adequately covered by R065.
There is something more in R087. The second part is much more general

Jonathan: Is this just a bug in WSDL1.1?

Jacek: It is more than a bug. Operations have to be distinguishable by means we specify 

Jonathan: Can you rephrase it, jeff? 

Jeff: This is a req on serialisation to be unambiguous. 
Should that be true for all bindings or just SOAP1.2?

Jacek: It should be true for all bindings

Jeff: Should we ensure this through guidelines for writing bindings?

Jacek: ?? 

Glen: We are moving from requirements to implementation discussion
The unambiguousity is the req 
The way we express it is implementation 

Jeff: Someone can rephrase it ?

Glen: It should be possible to create an unambiguous dispatching mechanism for locating the target operation of a message

Jacek: of an incoming message 

Glen: It should be possible to put information in the description that enables unambiguous...

Jeff: The description must enable unambiguous identification of the operation in a message

Glen: We should define more clearly what we are talking about, especially with the word operation

Jeff: Any on-the-wire message can be unambiguously mapped to an operation (?)

Roberto: Any on-the-wire message that is valid with respect to the interface binding can be unambiguously mapped to an operation.

Glen: ok

Jeff: I prefer roberto's phrasing

jonathan: Choose one? the shorter => jeff's one 

Jonathan: It should be a must 

Jonathan: Remove R087 text and add a new req or rephrase 87 ?

Jeff: Let's create a new req and reject R087

Jeff: Req R114 is a must and it says: Any on-the-wire message can be unambiguously mapped to an operation.

Req R114 accepted

Jonathan: req R091 now
Any comment?

Jonathan: R091 rejected as redundant

Jonathan: next req = R092 

Jeff: is it about partial interfaces that we can still use?

Jonathan: is it partially redundant with R066?

Jeff: I will go with a new req for partial interfaces

Jonathan: Req R092 is marked as rejected

Jonathan: next is req R108 

Jonathan: Is it an attachment scheme? 
What does efficiently mean exactly?

Jacek: It is not SOAP attachment but binary attachment

Jeff: should we tweak the SOAP req or something else 
Is it to ensure good bindings for SOAP or something else?

Jonathan: SOAP attachment is part of SOAP, covered by R065 

Jacek: +1

Jeff: Req 108 marked as rejected 

Jonathan: 10 minutes before the telcon end. Pick an extensibility req: R067

Jeff: Should we keep the big things and throw away others ?

Igor: Leaving 67 as it is will not push us to do anything

Jeff: What about R015?

Igor: We should leave 67 as general and add a req to define a way for metadata about the description to be inserted in the description

Jeff: What is metadata?

Igor: Extension is a particular case of metadata 

Igor: Extensible metadata is the ability to describe what is mandated by the spec
Generic extensibility is the ability to extend the spec in different ways

Jonathan: Is it a req about mustUnderstand/Optional extensions? 
Igor, could you send an e-mail on the mailing list?

Igor: I will do a req

Jeff: I will try to send a req list sooner

Summary of Action Items
2002.02.14. Jonathan: Map Face-to-Face meetings 6 months in advance. 
2002.04.04. Editors to get CVS requests to Philippe. 
2002.03.07. Keith. Discuss open content model design. 
2002.03.21. Editors (Jeff/Sanjiva). Do presentations of top 5 broken items 
            in WSDL 1.1 at the F2F. 
2002.03.28. JJM+Glen. Work towards new req about extensions 
2002.04.04. Everyone to read the use cases and send e-mail raising issue for 
            the FTF. 
2002.04.04. Jeffrey to rephrase R083 


Scribe: Youenn Fablet
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 15:16:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:37 UTC