- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 07:49:28 -0400
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I agree WSDL needs to have the ability to define events. It is useful to note though that WSDL 1.1 does not support events right now. Both solicit-response (S-R) and output-pnly (O-O) style operations are currently unusable in WSDL 1.1 as there are no bindings defined for them. What I'm proposing is that we find better ways to do what those were intended to cover (which was mostly what Prasad writes as case 1 below). So I'm ok with tieing the removal of S-R and O-O operations to a solution to case 1, but yet not tieing that to adding an event mechanism. What that amounts to saying is that I could live with WSDL 1.2 having a better way to support case (1), but possibly not having an event mechanism until later. I'm separating the solutions to the two cases as I see them being quite different. The case (1) solution can be something along the lines of what I posted earlier today, whereas the case (2) solution is a bit more complex because of the need for a subscription mechanism and passing of service references etc.. Igor, is that ok with you? Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com> To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:16 PM Subject: Re: Web Services Description Conference call minutes for April 18 , 20 02 > Igor, > > We did talk about the need for event mechanism as well on the call yesterday and we agreed that there are two separate issues here. > > 1. Use of Solicit-Response; Notification or an alternate mechanism to capture the description from the Initiator / message sender perspective both at the abstract as well as the binding levels. > > 2. The need to provide an event mechanism. > > If a common facility (such as Solicit-Response or Notification) can accommodate both that is fine but, we agreed that there is clear need for both. > > Regards, Prasad > > "Sedukhin, Igor" wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > Just for the record. > > > > When discussing > > Issue: remove solicit-response and output-only operations? > > > > I was pretty vocal about not trying to offload the requirement to define events and notifications to Orchestration standards. Also it should not matter if it is defined and/or required by other standards. Events and notifications (as well as subscription mechanism) must be part of the WSDL to properly describe service operations. > > I think Sanjiva had this point before (during F2F), but during the call, discussion seemed to only focused on the removal part, not the alternative event/callback definition which was part of the original proposal. > > > > -- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com) > > -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tom Jordahl [mailto:tomj@macromedia.com] > > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 12:57 PM > > To: 'www-ws-desc@w3.org' > > Subject: Web Services Description Conference call minutes for April 18, 20 02 > > > > Here are the minutes from today's conference call: > > > > Web Services Description Working Group Conference Call > > April 18, 2002 > > > > Agenda > > ----------- > > 1. Attendance > > 2. Approval of minutes > > 3. New minutes process review > > 4. Review of Action items. > > 5. Coordination with WS Arch WG > > 6. Requirements doc. > > 7. WG approval to publish requirements and usage scenarios documents. 8. Tracking new issues 9. Issues discussion. > > > > Attendance > > ----------------- > > Present: > > *Mike Ballantyne Electronic Data Systems > > David Booth W3C > > Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software > > Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems > > Glen Daniels Macromedia > > Youenn Fablet Canon > > Dietmar Gaertner Software AG > > 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 > > *Don Mullen Tibco > > Waqar Sadiq Electronic Data Systems > > Adi Sakala IONA Technologies > > Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft Corporation > > Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates > > Sandra Swearingen U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force > > *William Stumbo Xerox > > Jerry Thrasher Lexmark > > Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM Corporation > > Joyce Yang Oracle > > Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc. > > * lost due to technical difficulties. > > > > Regrets: > > Michael Champion Software AG > > Laurent De Teneuille L'Echangeur > > Tim Finin University of Maryland > > Dan Kulp IONA > > Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle Corporation > > Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon > > Jochen Ruetschlin DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology > > Arthur Ryman IBM > > Krishna Sankar Cisco Systems > > Dave Solo Citigroup > > William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard Company > > Don Wright Lexmark > > > > Absent: > > Keith Ballinger Microsoft Corporation > > Mike Davoren W. W. Grainger > > Michael Mealling Verisign > > Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce > > Johan Pauhlsson L'Echangeur > > Stefano Pugliani Sun > > Radhika Roy AT&T > > Daniel Schutzer Citigroup > > > > Approval of minutes > > ----------------------------- > > Last conference call: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/04-minutes.html > > Face-2Face: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0050.html > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0052.html > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0060.html > > > > April 4th - Approved > > F2F minutes - Approved > > > > Problems with Verizon switch is preventing many from calling in > > > > > > New minutes process > > -------------------------------- > > Details at: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0062.html > > Highlights: > > - Publish agenda's to public list > > - Publish minutes to public list, omitting 'sensitive' info. > > - Dialing details will go to admin list. > > - Corrections are sent to the public list. > > > > TomJ: How does the attendance list get to the scribe? > > Jonathan will send in Email to the scribe. > > > > Call adjourned to another conference call bridge. > > > > Action Items > > ------------------- > > DONE 2002.02.14 Jonathan: Map Face-to-Face meetings 6 months in advance. > > - Dates and places on web page http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/f2fJuneLogistics.html > > > > IN PROGRESS 2002.04.04 Editors to get CVS requests to Philippe. > > KEITH ABSENT 2002.03.07 Keith. Discuss open content model design. > > DONE 2002.03.21 Editors (Jeff/Sanjiva). Do presentations of top 5 broken > > items in WSDL 1.1 at the F2F. > > DONE 2002.04.04 Everyone to read the use cases and send e-mail raising > > issue for the FTF. > > DONE? 2002.04.04 Jeffrey to rephrase R083 > > IN PROGRESS 2002.04.10 Sanjiva - add inconsistent use of port and endpoint to issues > > list Arthur - work on text for a requirement to define > > equivalence of wsdl document > > DONE (by Jonathan) 2002.04.10 Jeffrey Schlimmer to remove expected version annotations. > > PENDING 2002.04.11 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. > > DONE 2002.04.11 Sanjiva W. will post descriptions for issues discussed in > > presentations and add to issue lists if not there yet. due date: > > next conference call > > PENDING 2002.04.11 Jeff Schlimmer Add UPNP example to use cases. > > DONE 2002.04.12 David Booth ask Eric for clarification and will cc RDF interest > > group. > > DONE 2002.04.12 Jeffery, Sandeep, Waqar - have drafts ready by next telcon on > > Thursday 4/18. > > > > NEW ACTION - 2002.04.18 - Waqar will identify use cases to remove. > > NEW ACTION - 2002.04.18 - Waqar will post by next Tuesday a draft. > > Publish if no objections at the next telecon. > > > > DONE 2002.04.12 JM will pursue use case task force with coordination group. > > > > Coordination with WS Arch WG > > ---------------------------- > > Jonathan: > > - Arch group has proposed they own the Glossary and Usage Scenarios docs. > > - Description will not create their own, just comment on theirs. > > > > Waqar: concern that we might not like the docs we have to use. > > Jonathan: doesn't see any reason why our feedback would be ignored > > Glen: our usage may be more detailed than theirs > > Jonathan: Use cases would be more detailed than usage scenarios and slightly different > > TomJ: Let 'em have it, and lets get on to WSDL > > > > Requirements doc > > -------------------------- > > Latest doc: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/att-0104/01-ws-desc- reqs-20020417.html > > Jonathan moved rejects to the bottom. Still editorial work to be done > > > > NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jeffery will clean up R001 > > Proposed new wording for R001 from Dave Booth: > > [Accepted, Must, Charter] The language developed by the WG must permit any programming model, transport or protocol for communication between peers. (Last revised 21 Feb 2002.) > > > > New requirement from Mark Baker: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/0075.html > > Jonathan wants to add as a draft requirement. No objections > > > > WG approval to publish requirements and usage scenarios documents > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > NEW ACTION: 2002.04.18 Jeffery will clean up requirements document, > > and we will have a publishable draft by next Tuesday, > > Publication process will start after conference call Thursday. > > > > Discussion about how the review process will work. > > > > NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jonathan, Philippe Investigate setting up new mailing list for review comments. > > > > Tracking new issues > > ----------------------- > > NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Sanjiva Add 5 new issues raised by Prasad in Email to the issues list. NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Waqar Add new use case raised on the mailing list to use cases. > > > > Issues discussion > > ------------------ > > Issue: remove solicit-response and output-only operations? > > Thread starts at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/0059.html > > > > Prasad: Wants to keep them. > > JacekK: Address on port don't make sense for these operations Various arguments that something *like* solicit-response should be kept in the spec > > JeffS: It's not obvious to me that we need to keep solicit-response in the spec. > > > > NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Prasad Write up question for XLANG and/or WSFL groups whether > > they need solicit-response. > > > > NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jonathan Solicit input from XLANG and/or WSFL groups whether > > they need solicit-response. > > > > Issue: support cross references within a WSDL file using ncnames? Thread starts at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/0061.html > > > > Tabled till next time due to time limitations. > > > > Summary of New Action Items > > --------------------------- > > NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Waqar will identify use cases to remove. > > NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Waqar will post by next Tuesday a draft. > > Publish if no objections at the next telecon. NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jeffery will clean up R001 NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jonathan, Philippe Investigate setting up new mailing list for review comments. NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Sanjiva Add 5 new issues raised by Prasad in to the issues list. NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Waqar Add new use case raised on the mailing list NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Prasad Write up question for XLANG and/or WSFL groups whether > > they need solicit-response. > > NEW ACTION 2002.04.18 Jonathan Solicit input from XLANG and/or WSFL groups whether > > they need solicit-response. > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 07:52:27 UTC