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

Re: Web Services Description Conference call minutes for April 18 , 20 02

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 07:49:28 -0400
Message-ID: <016e01c1eb86$1737ea50$b63c8640@lankabook2>
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 GMT

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