- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:15:13 -0800
- 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 Hégaret, 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 UTC