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

Minutes 20 June 2002 WS Desc telcon

From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:56:37 -0400
Message-ID: <5C76D29CD0FA3143896D08BB1743296AB899DE@bsebe001.NOE.Nokia.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT