- From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:56:37 -0400
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Minutes of the 20 June 2002 WS Desc telcon
Present:
Mike Ballantyne Electronic Data Systems
David Booth W3C
Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software
Glen Daniels Macromedia
Youenn Fablet Canon
Dietmar Gaertner Software AG
Martin Gudgin Microsoft Corporation
Tom Jordahl Macromedia
Jacek Kopecky Systinet
Philippe Le Hégaret W3C
Steve Lind AT&T
Michael Mahan Nokia
Jonathan Marsh Microsoft
Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle
Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce
Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon
Don Mullen Tibco
Johan Pauhlsson L'Echangeur
Jochen Ruetschlin DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
Arthur Ryman IBM
Adi Sakala IONA Technologies
Krishna Sankar Cisco Systems
Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft
Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates
William Stumbo Xerox
Jerry Thrasher Lexmark
William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
Don Wright Lexmark
Joyce Yang Oracle
Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
Regrets:
Michael Champion Software AG
Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems
Laurent De Teneuille L'Echangeur
Tim Finin University of Maryland
Mario Jeckle DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
Dan Kulp IONA
Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
Pallavi Malu Intel
Michael Mealling Verisign
Stefano Pogliani Sun
Waqar Sadiq Electronic Data Systems
Daniel Schutzer Citigroup
Dave Solo Citigroup
Sandra Swearingen U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force
Absent:
Mike Davoren W. W. Grainger
Steve Graham Global Grid Forum
Sandeep Kumar Cisco Systems
Mike McHugh W. W. Grainger
Steve Tuecke Global Grid Forum
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0108.html
Scribe: Mike Mahan
Approval of minutes: june6 minutes approved
f2f minutes - need another week to review
f2f minutes are in irc log
Jonathan will not consolidate f2f minutes
Review of Action items.
DONE 2002.06.06: Joyce to write up rationale for dropping
operation overloading.
DONE 2002.06.06: GlenD to write up his proposed extensibility spec
DONE 2002.06.06: GlenD and JJ will prepare a Soap MEP presentation for F2F
RETIRED 2002.06.06: Jeffrey to write solicit-response proposal to discuss at f2f
PENDING 2002.06.10: Martin to provide component descriptions for July 12.
[in time for July 20 teleconf]
DONE 2002.06.20: Jacek to write a concrete proposal for solicit-response
PENDING 2002.06.11: Jeffrey to write up his two requirements for
solicit-response
PENDING 2002.06.11: Martin is to follow up with Eric Prud'hommeux to see
what he means by this requirement. No reply from Eric
yet. See http://lists.w3.org/Archive/Member/w3c-archive/2002Jun/0031.html
ACTION: converging issues list for single view - Jonathan will take
Publications: Draft for WSDL part 1 and part 2 - take a snapshot this week
Sanjiva: alittle work to do still - will ask for comments
JonathanM: next week we should be ready for pub
JonathanM: will do deadline for show stoppers and ready for publish in July
JonathanM: what about part2? Can we take the snapshot
Sanjiva: some editorial comments needed
Jean-J: thinks the april version is pretty ready
JonathanM: call for objections next week.
Requirements doc: 2 items to do
Philippe requirements doc: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/requirements/ws-desc-reqs.html
item 1: for Eric: what does RDF req mean in practice
JonathanM: do we need to wait for eric? Or just publish and move on?
JM in favor of publishing as is. Eric needed more for scope of meeting req, not the req itself
item 2: WSA analysis - all issues are compatible
should this be pushed back? Yes
next week's telecon will be a vote on req doc
jeff: I added the missing 's' in the title of the requirements document.
Martin appointed as editor for part1
Jeffery moves to editor of part2
Cancel July4 telecon - clash with US holiday
Issues...
jump start soap binding issues
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0048.html
new issue: specifying soap bindings fault codes - please add to issues list
ACTION: - please add to issues list - specifying soap bindings fault codes
Closing duplicate issues...
ISSUE 60
sanjiva: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x60
Sanjiva's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0111.html
Sanjiva: already addressed in issue 111
JonathanM: all the issues have similar reasons to close
JonathanM: will track all issues on list. Otherwise will resolve all next telecon
ISSUE 6A: overload operations
Jochen still has problem with 6A
JonathanM: concensus was reached earlier on 6A. 1 more week is granted to make the case
Jochen: we are doing desc not an implementation
Sanjiva: not free to keep this issue
JeffM: This group does consider the implementation of this desc
dbooth: clarify why it is needed
Jochem: OK, it is a structure mechanism.
JeffS: name munging is req one way or another
JeffS: where is the interoperability bar? Some platforms will overload and some will not
JonathanM: Take this issue to email. Next week for final vote.
JeffM: One last shot: overloading has to be defined relative to a type system. What is the normative WSDL type system that will be used?
ISSUE 6B: non soap http binding issues
JonathanM: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0102.html
JeffS: walks through the issue
Encoding of complex types related to the Get issue
?: - this was a 6a comment
JonathanM: do we object to resolving the other issues: 6d,d,e, 53-56, clarification to 60
arthur: 41 is an issue to resolve now
Jean-J: 53 has an issue, but OK to resolve
JonathanM: other than 6A and 41 are there any objections
WSD: no objections
SOAP binding ISSUES
JonathanM: identify champions, survey, analysis of these
6c. Issue: SOAPAction1 #1
?: how bad is the problem?
JonathanM: issue is minor - whether to include quotes
sanjiva: to support soap1.1, we have to do it
ACTION: sanjiva: AI 'sortof' commits to championing 6C, then later confirms
6d. Issue: SOAPAction2 #2
sanjiva: there is a bigger issue - support soap1.1 or soap1.2
?: we might need two separate bindings - one for each version
?: no actual req for 1.1, but reality is different
?: however, this WG is more tied to soap1.2 and let someone else specify a 1.1 binding?
?: raise this issue on ml
?: there are soap1.1 & wsdl1.1 issues
?: take on 1.1 binding on a different priority/timetable than main deliverable
dietmar: question: is it possible to describe a new HTTP header
gudge: generalize further - mechanism for additional bindings for smtp, beep, etc headers
JonathanM: is this a new issue?
dietmar: a solution here could resolve the soap action issues
Jean-J: a soap 1.2 binding may not be suitable for 1.1
ACTION to Jean-J - should we generalize a mechanism to provide protocol headers
Jean-J: req document only mentions SOAP1.2 a few times. A Soap 1.1 req was rejected
?: the rejection was not due to 1.1ness
JonathanM: there is no req to do 1.1 - maybe a subgroup can publish a note
Jean-J: charter only has soap 1.2
JonathanM: lets hear form other points of view - including soapbuilders
6e. Issue: Namespaces #4
JonathanM: this is a best-practices issue... anyone to champion
ACTION: gudge volunteers to champion
6f. Issue: Encoding Style #5
JonathanM: champions?
ACTION: Arthur: will look at this
gudge: scoping rules are the same
gudge: type of encodingStyle is now anyURI rather than 'list of anyURI'
6g. Issue: nowhere to specify actor URI in WSDL? #17
ACTION: Jean-J volunteers for 17
6h. Issue: Default for transport of <soap:binding> #18
JonathanM: is this a schema problem? what is the default?
ACTION: JeffS volenteers to look at this
6i. Issue: SOAP 1.2 support? #23
?: support all of SOAP1.2 or what portion?
dietmar: important that we have full coverage of 1.2
JonathanM: are there deprecated or optional features in soap 1.2 which wsdl 1.2 will not support?
Jean-J: this is a larger issue - how to support soap1.2
Jean-J: a TF may be appropriate since this is larger than a breadbox
JonathanM: volunteers for the TF? to describe the boundaries
JeffM: I think before we make an arbitrary decision that we have to have full coverage of soap 1.2, I would think we should know exactly what's involved
ACTION: glen, Jean-J, MikeM, dietmar volunteer
TF to produce report in ~3 weeks
JonathanM: this may need f2f time in Sept
Jean-J: use mailing list for communications
Jean-J: please set up telecon time
ACTION: JonathanM will help with telecon logictics
6j. Issue: Real difference between literal vs. encoded? #24
JonathanM: literal vs encoded, this relates to soap1.2 support
JeffS: this is a messy one
JeffS: big and deserves to be tracked separately
sanjiva: this shouldn't be resolved separate from related issues
ACTION: JonathanM: postpone this one
Champions for 6j,k,l or downwards?
JeffS: issue 28 and 18 are similar
ACTION: gudge: issue 25 champion
ACTION: arthur: issue 30 please
ACTION: Issue 32 is a dup identified by Jean-J
JonathanM: sorry for boring everyone with administrativa today. adios
Summary of Action Items:
ACTION: JM. Converging issues list for single view
ACTION: ?. add to issues list - specifying soap bindings fault codes
ACTION: Sanjiva. Champion for 6c. Issue: SOAPAction1 #1
ACTION: Jean-J. Analyze whether WSD should gneralize a mechanism to provide protocol headers. This was discussed as part of 6d. Issue: SOAPAction2 #2
ACTION: Gudge. Champion for 6e: Issue Namespaces #4
ACTION: Arthur: Champion for 6f. Issue: Encoding Style #5
ACTION: Jean-J Champion for 6g. Issue: nowhere to specify actor URI in WSDL? #17
ACTION: JeffS Champion for 6h. Issue: Default for transport of <soap:binding> #18
ACTION: Jean-J, Glen, Mike, Dietmar create TF. 3 weeks for findings on 6i. Issue: SOAP 1.2 support? #23
ACTION: JonathanM will help with telecon logictics for 6i. Issue: SOAP 1.2 support? #23
ACTION: JonathanM. Postpone 6j. Issue: Real difference between literal vs. encoded? #24
ACTION: Gudge. Champion for 6k. Issue: Unclear relationship between XML Schemas and SOAP data model #25
ACTION: Arthur. Champion for 6o. Issue: soap:body encodingStyle #30.
ACTION: Issue Editor. Jean-J identifies dup issue: 6q. Issue: SOAP 1.1 backward compatibility support? #32
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 09:56:45 UTC