Working Group home page · Meeting records · IRC log
This is the complete version, possibly with confidential material, of the minutes.
Sandeep Kumar, Mike McHugh, Jean-Jacques Moreau were not present. Arthur Ryman was assigned the role of scribe.
The minutes were approved without comment.
|DONE||2002.04.04||Editors to get CVS requests to Philippe.|
|PENDING||2002.04.18||Waqar Add new use case raised on the mailing list.|
|PENDING||2002.04.18||Waqar will post by next Tuesday a draft.|
|PENDING||2002.05.02||DavidB to get June F2F registration link working.||DONE||2002.05.02||JM to send a message to Chris to have members of the Desc WG to join the Arch WG Usage Scenario task force.|
Make your hotel reservations asap because June is a tourist month in Paris.
There was no further discussion of Usage Scenarios.
The following new issues were raised in the discussion lists:
Resolution: Retire the issue Conflicts of WSDL schemas.
Resolution: "WSDL import = XSD import + required location"
ACTION: Sanjiva will make the description of the <import> element clearer.
There has been a suggestion to eliminate the <message> element, and this suggestion has received some support, so it does not make sense to add function to the <message> element at this point. On the other hand, eliminating <message> in WSDL 1.2 is viewed as a major change, so it should be deferred until WSDL 2.0. In addition, WSDL 1.1 allows optional parts in bindings.
ACTION: Sanjiva will clarify the WSDL 1.1 text that described optional parts in bindings.
Resolution: Leave <message> in next draft.
ACTION: Sanjiva will create new issue to eliminate <message>
Mike Deem proposed a simplified syntax to avoid <message> for simple cases.
ACTION: Jonathan will reply to Mike Deem.
Consideration of this issue led to a discussion of the split of function between WSDL 1.2 and WSDL 2.0. Two approaches were expressed. One approach was to collect all requirements and then allocate them to either WSDL 1.2 or WSDL 2.0. The other approach was to start with WSDL 1.1 as the basis for WSDL 1.2. It was pointed out that the later approach was agreed to at the April FTF meeting.
Discussion continued on the approach to creating the WSDL 1.2 draft. It was suggested that it would be better to create an Abstract Model (AM) of the WSDL 1.1 semantics, and to create the WSDL 1.2 document from scratch based on the AM. It was remarked that the SOAP 1.2 specification was based on an AM, although the AM no longer survived as a separate document.
It was agreed that it would be useful for a task force to work on an AM and that its first deliverable should be a presentation on its progress at the June FTF meeting. Jonathan will post a call for volunteers to lead and work on the AM, and will select a leader from those who respond. The task force will hold discussions on the public list and will also hold private teleconferences. The size of the task force will be determined by the level of interest.
ACTION: Jonathan will post a note describing the AM task force, and will select a leader.
It was further suggested that UML be used to describe the AM since WSDL is a metamodel and the OMG Meta Object Facility (MOF) is a UML model that is commonly used for this type of application. However, the consensus was that the choice of how to record the AM would in practice be dictated by the skill set of the task force.
We ran out of time at this point. Further discussion on this and the remaining issues is defered until the next teleconference.
Scribe: Arthur Ryman