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

Web Services Description Working Group 2002-02-28 meeting minutes

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:15:13 -0800
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C0512185C@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Web Services Description Working Group 2002-02-28 meeting minutes

Full minutes: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/02/28-minutes (members only)

   Participants:
     * Mike Ballantyne, Electronic Data Systems
     * David Booth, W3C
     * Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
     * Youenn Fablet, Canon alternate
     * Mario Jeckle, DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
     * Alan Kotok, DISA
     * Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP
     * Pallavi Malu, Intel Corporation
     * Jonathan Marsh, Microsoft Corporation
     * Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
     * Johan Pauhlsson, L'Echangeur
     * Jochen Ruetschlin, DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
     * Arthur Ryman, IBM
     * Waqar Sadiq, Electronic Data Systems
     * Jeffrey Schlimmer, Microsoft Corporation
     * Daniel Schutzer, Citigroup
     * Igor Sedukhin, Computer Associates
     * Sandra Swearingen, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force
     * William Vambenepe, Hewlett-Packard Company
     * Sanjiva Weerawarana, IBM Corporation
     * Don Wright, Lexmark
     * Prasad Yendluri, webMethods, Inc.

   Regrets:
     * Keith Ballinger, Microsoft Corporation
     * Glen Daniels, Macromedia
     * Dan Kulp, IONA Technologies
     * Philippe Le H├ęgaret, W3C
     * Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle Corporation
     * Dale Moberg, Cyclone Commerce
     * Adi Sakala, IONA Technologies
     * Rich Salz, Zolera Systems
     * Krishna Sankar, Cisco Systems
     * Jerry Thrasher, Lexmark

   Absents:
     * Michael Champion, Software AG
     * Mike Davoren, W. W. Grainger
     * Laurent De Teneuille, L'Echangeur
     * Tim Finin, University of Maryland
     * Dietmar Gaertner, Software AG
     * Martin Gudgin, Developmentor
     * Tom Jordahl, Macromedia
     * Jacek Kopecky, Systinet
     * Sandeep Kumar, Cisco
     * Mike McHugh, W. W. Grainger
     * Aaron Skonnard, Developmentor
     * Dave Solo, Citigroup
     * Michael Mealling, Verisign

   Observers:
     * Ayse Dilber, AT&T

[3]Agenda

      [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Feb/0081.html (members only)

    1. [4]Approval of minutes
    2. [5]Scribe
    3. [6]New Members
    4. [7]RDF Mapping
    5. [8]Requirements
    6. [9]Progress Plan
    7. [10]Other Business

      [4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/02/ApprovalofMinutes
      [5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/02/Scribe
      [6] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/02/NewMembers
      [7] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/02/RDFMapping
      [8] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/02/Requirements
      [9] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/02/ProgressPlan
     [10] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/02/OtherBusiness

Review of outstanding action items

     * DONE. 2002.02.21. Jeffrey Schlimmer will send an updated
       requirements document to the list.
       [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/att-01
       09/01-WSRQ0225.htm
     * DONE. 2002.02.21. Jeffrey Schlimmer will seed the discussion on
       the public mailing list with a few choice issues.
       [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0110.h
       tml
       [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0111.h
       tml
       [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0112.h
       tml
     * CONTINUED. 2002.02.14. Jonathan Marsh will map the Face-to-Face
       meetings 6 months in advance. Due date: Unspecified.

     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/att-0109/01-WSRQ0225.htm
     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0110.html
     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0111.html
     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0112.html

Agenda Items

  Approval of minutes

   Participants approved the [15]Feb 21 minutes with no further
   corrections.

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/02/21-minutes.html

  Scribe

   Alan Kotok, DISA, volunteered

  New Members

   Welcome new members: Arthur Ryman of IBM, Michael Meeling of Verisign,
   William Stumbo of Xerox (awaiting confirmation), and Ayse Dilber of
   AT&T (awaiting confirmation).

  RDF Mapping

   Jonathan Marsh reported Eric Prud'hommeaux sent a first draft of a
   [16]WSDL 1.1 to RDF mapping, and asked for ways that the work group
   could discuss the issue further.  Participants discussed the
   purpose of the mapping to RDF.  Marsh said that the work group's
   charter includes a mapping to RDF, but noted that many of the group's
   members interested in this topic were not on the call.  He suggested
   and participants concurred that the group postpone the discussion
   until next week.

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2002/02/21-WSDL-RDF-mapping/

  Requirements

   Latest document:
   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/att-0109/0
   1-WSRQ0225.htm.

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/att-0109/01-WSRQ0225.htm

   Marsh said the list of requirements had grown by three over the week,
   with over 100 requirements now logged.  He cautioned that the group
   needs to make faster progress in resolving the requirements, and noted
   that the target date for publishing the requirements document may need
   to be extended from March to April.

   a. DR022 Error messages
   R022 [MUST] Charter: The language must also describe the error
   messages generated, if any.
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0112.html

   Participants discussed the need for and purpose of this requirement,
   some of whom noted it would be difficult to enforce, particularly in
   its current wording as a mandatory (MUST) requirement.  A key issue
   was the need to cover all error messages or faults. Another issue
   was the need to include errors or faults generated by
   application-level messages.  Also, the group discussed the need to
   identify faults at the level of granularity represented by end-points
   or intermediaries.

   The group agreed to the following language:
   R022 [MUST] Charter: The language must allow describing
   application-level error messages (AKA faults) generated by the Web
   Service.

   b. DR101  Two-Part Spec
   [MUST] The final WSDL specification should be divided into two parts:
   the first part only focuses on the core interface definition language,
   and the second part addresses the binding extensions. This requirement
   concurs with the Charter's requirement for two separate deliverables.
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0111.html

   The group agreed that this requirement bordered on micro-management
   and should be eliminated.

   c. DR033/34 [MUST] Abstract Interfaces
   DR033: [MUST] Support abstract interfaces
   DR034: [MUST] Support interfaces derived from abstract interfaces.
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0112.html

   The group discussed the need for these requirements to support
   abstract interfaces and their derivations, or whether they represented
   more of a design goal than a requirement.  Participants noted that as
   worded (including as mandatory or MUST requirements) they could become
   quite restrictive and expensive to implement.  Participants also
   noted that later requirements may cover the inheritance issue.

   The group agreed to remove the derivations/inheritance issue and
   combine the two requirements into one, with an action item to propose
   new wording by e-mail (NOTE:  ACTION ITEM NOT ASSIGNED)

   d. DR026 Provide human readable documentation.
   [MUST] Charter: The description language designed will be used both by
   applications in order to automatically communicate between each other
   as well as by programmers developing Web services themselves. The
   language should therefore provide, in addition to the raw XML
   definition of the interface, human-readable comment capabilities to
   allow both applications and developers to make use of them.

   Participants approved the wording without change.

   e. DR098 Examples written in Schema 1.0.
   [MUST] WG: The schema and examples for the WG specifications must be
   written in XML Schema (http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema).

   The group discussed the need to specify which version of XML Schema,
   noting the possibility that W3C could issue an updated version later
   this year.  Participants agreed to rewrite the item to better
   represent the two ideas expressed:  (1) the schema and examples be
   written in XML Schema, and (2) the schema and examples be written in
   the latest W3C XML Schema Recommendation

   The following new language is proposed:
   R098 [MUST] WG: The schema and examples for the WG specifications must
   be written in XML Schema and should be written in the latest public
   XML Schema recommendation.

   f. Section 3.4, Description of interactions with a service

   DR036
   [MUST] Charter: The Working Group will define a mechanism which will
   allow a Web service to describe the following set of operations:
   one-way messages (to and from the service described), request-response
   and solicit-response, as described in WSDL 1.1's port types.

   DR037
   [MUST]  Must describe SOAP 1.2 MEP (Message Exchange Pattern)
   (charter says: "must [...] describe [...] one-way messages, [...]
   request-response")

   DR038
   [MUST] Must be able to describe simple one-way messages, i.e., either
   incoming or outgoing (event) messages.

   DR039
   [MUST] Must be able to describe simple request-response-fault message
   exchange.

   The group noted the similarity of 037 to 036, and that 038 and 039
   appeared to be subsets of 037.  Participants discussed the need to
   set minimal requirements (low-bar) or aggressive targets (high-bar) in
   the document.  The group discussed as well the relationship to SOAP
   1.2, which represents more aggressive targets, and noted that many of
   the individual requirements already reflected SOAP 1.2.  Some
   participants said the mandatory nature of the requirements (MUST) made
   them highly restrictive.  Others noted that the wording came out of
   the work group's charter, which represents desired functionality.

   Participants agreed on the following changes:
   - Start with the language in DR036
   - Delete requirements 037, 038, and 039
   - Add a reference to faults
   - Change `set of operations' to `functionality'
   - Drop the reference to WSDL 1.1 port types

   The new proposed language follows:

   DR036. [MUST] The language will allow a Web Service to describe the
   functionality associated with one-way messages (to and from the
   service described), request-response, solicit-response, and faults.

   g. DR041
   [MUST] Be able to describe sets of messages that form a logical
   group (i.e., a port type).

   Some participants expressed concerns about the phrase 'sets of
   messages' that may be too restrictive; a term like 'operations' may be
   more accurate. Others also questioned the need to identify port
   types.  The group also discussed the requirements relationship to
   DR055 ([SHOULD] Support grouping functionalities (operations) that
   share the same message-exchange pattern and transport binding), and
   whether 041 should be listed in Section 3.5, Messages and Types

   The group agreed to following proposed language:

   R041 [MUST] Be able to describe sets of operations that form a logical
   group.

  Progress Plan

   The discussion of┬  DR036 noted repeated references to SOAP 1.2 among
   the draft requirements. Jean-Jacques Moreau agreed to aggregate the
   requirements related to SOAP 1.2 to better understand these
   relationships. Due date, 5 March 2002

   Jonathan Marsh said section 3.2 on Simplicity itself needed some
   simplification. David Booth agreed to take on that assignment.  Due
   date, 5 March 2002.

   Marsh also needs a volunteer to work on section 3.7 on bindings.  He
   also reiterated the need to speed up the process of reviewing the
   requirements, including getting more done by e-mail between conference
   calls.

  Other Business

   Philippe Le Hegaret requests that lead editors contact him with their
   preferences for text editors:  JigEdit or CVS.

   Marsh said he was still working on the licensing issue involving
   Ariba, and will alert the Work Group if anything new develops.

  Action Items

     * 2002.03.05. Jean-Jacques Moreau agreed to aggregate the
       requirements related to SOAP 1.2.
     * 2002.03.05. David Booth agreed to simplify section 3.2 on
       simplicity.
     * 2002.03.XX. Jeffrey Schlimmer to combine DR033 and 034, and
       propose new language by e-mail.
     * CONTINUED.┬  2002.02.14. Jonathan Marsh will map the Face-to-Face
       meetings 6 months in advance. Due date: Unspecified.

     _________________________________________________________________

   Scribe: Alan Kotok, DISA
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 14:15:18 GMT

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