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

RE: Minutes: 19 Sept 2002 WS Description WG - email delivery prob lem

From: Liu, Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:43:16 +0100
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061DA954D7@uspalx20a.pal.sap-ag.de>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Cc: jmarsh@microsoft.com

Is that only for me?  I noticed that some times there is a serious delay for a message to reach the list - a couple of messages I sent quite a while ago just show up in the list today. 

Regards,
Kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Kevin 
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 5:56 PM
> To: 'Stumbo, William K'; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Cc: jmarsh@microsoft.com
> Subject: RE: Minutes: 19 Sept 2002 WS Description WG
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Bill, Hi Jonathan,
> 
> two minor corrections:
> 
> 8.  BindingType proposal from Kevin [12].
> >     Response from Jacek [13].
> > 
> > 2002-09-19:  Jeffery raised some concerns:
> 
> It's Jacek who raised the concerns, not Jeffery
> 
> >              - data model for binding is inconsistent with 
> > other models.  
> 
> This is not a concern, instead it's brought up as a reason 
> for changing the current construct
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Kevin
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stumbo, William K [mailto:WStumbo@crt.xerox.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 10:15 AM
> > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Cc: jmarsh@microsoft.com; Stumbo, William K
> > Subject: Minutes: 19 Sept 2002 WS Description WG
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Web Services Description Working Group
> >    September 19, 2002
> > 
> > Attendance
> > 
> > Present:
> >  Mike Ballantyne        Electronic Data Systems
> >  David Booth            W3C
> >  Allen Brookes          Rogue Wave Software
> >  Roberto Chinnici       Sun Microsystems
> >  Glen Daniels           Macromedia
> >  Youenn Fablet          Canon
> >  Tom Jordahl            Macromedia
> >  Jacek Kopecky          Systinet
> >  Sandeep Kumar          Cisco Systems
> >  Philippe Le Hégaret    W3C
> >  Amelia Lewis           TIBCO
> >  Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
> >  Jonathan Marsh         Chair (Microsoft)
> >  Jeff Mischkinsky       Oracle
> >  Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce
> >  Jean-Jacques Moreau    Canon
> >  Arthur Ryman           IBM
> >  Waqar Sadiq            Electronic Data Systems	
> >  Adi Sakala             IONA Technologies
> >  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
> > 
> > Regrets:
> >  Michael Champion       Software AG
> >  Laurent De Teneuille   L'Echangeur
> >  Tim Finin              University of Maryland
> >  Dietmar Gaertner       Software AG
> >  Steve Graham           Global Grid Forum
> >  Martin Gudgin          Microsoft
> >  Dan Kulp               IONA
> >  Steve Lind             AT&T
> >  Michael Mealling       Verisign
> >  Stefano Pogliani       Sun
> >  Daniel Schutzer        Citigroup
> >  Dave Solo              Citigroup
> >  Steve Tuecke           Global Grid Forum
> >  Barbara Zengler        DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
> >  Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.
> > 
> > Absent:
> >  Mike Davoren           W. W. Grainger
> >  Michael Mahan          Nokia
> >  Pallavi Malu           Intel
> >  Mike McHugh            W. W. Grainger
> >  Don Mullen             Tibco
> >  Johan Pauhlsson        L'Echangeur
> >  Sandra Swearingen      U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 1.  Assign scribe.  Lucky minute taker for this week is:
> >       Bill Stumbo (yee haw!)
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 2.  Approval of minutes:
> >     - Sept 5 telcon [3]
> >       Approved.
> > 
> >     - Sept 9-11 FTF [4]
> >       Approved.
> > 
> >       Minor concern about misquotes in IRC log.  Discussion 
> on minutes
> >       vs. transcription.  General concern with identifying 
> key points.
> >       Suggestion to use section headings to help group topics.
> > 
> > AI -- all:  Send any missing action items to Jonathan's attention.
> > 
> > 
> > [3] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0023.html
> > [4] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0065.html
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 3.  Review of Action items.
> > DONE     2002-07-21: GlenD to send DavidB details on 
> hosting November
> >                      F2F
> >                      2002-09-19:  URL posted to IRC. [25]
> >                      Glen states to expect additional updates
> > [25] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/f2fNovLogistics.html
> > 
> > RETIRED  2002-07-21: Jeffrey & Gudge to flesh out a proposal for
> >                      omitting operation from soap binding.
> > 
> >                      2002-09-19:  Part of the hoisting 
> > proposal.  Need to
> > verify
> >                      completeness in upcoming draft.
> > 
> > CONTINUE 2002-07-21: Don Mullen to write up
> >                      an issue on making the transport attribute 
> >                      match the SOAP binding framework. 
> > 
> >                      2002-09-19:  Action item reworded.
> > 
> > DONE [5] 2002-09-05: Deitmar to extract remaining 
> > questions/issues from 
> >                      [6] and sent out in a new email thread 
> > to be opened
> >                      as a new issue(s).
> > 
> > 
> > Face to face actions follow:
> > 
> > PENDING  2002-09-09: Sanjiva to redo part 3.2 of his 
> binding proposal.
> > 
> > PENDING  2002-09-09: Gudge to check whether there is 
> already an issue
> >                      against Part 2: can you define different 
> >                      encodingStyles for different children of 
> >                      soap:Body (message parts).
> > 
> > PENDING  2002-09-10: Steve and Gudge to write up the portType 
> > extensibility
> >                      proposal.
> >                      
> >                      2002-09-19:  Action item reworded.
> > 
> > PENDING  2002-09-10: Sanjiva to produce a proposal for 
> equivalence of 
> >                      (at least) top-level components in the 
> > next couple 
> >                      of weeks.
> > 
> > PENDING  2002-09-10: Gudge; Jeffrey Schlimmer; Roberto et 
> al to write
> > proposal 
> >                      to remove message and replace with complexType.
> > 
> >                      2002-09-19:  Action item wording agreed to.
> > 
> >                      Roberto stated the goal is to determine 
> > what it would
> > look
> >                      like if we use XML Schema constructs 
> > instead of message
> >                      constructs.  
> > 
> > DONE [7] 2002-09-10: Arthur to kick off thread on @element 
> vs. @type,
> >                      perhaps by showing how to convert an existing 
> >                      @element into @type.
> > 
> > DONE [8] 2002-09-10: Arthur to write up direction and rationale to 
> >                      drop @use=encoded and post to wsdl wg 
> > public list. 
> > 
> > PENDING  2002-09-10: Gudge to provide summary of using xml 
> schema to 
> >                      wrap other type systems at an 
> appropriate level 
> >                      of abstraction.
> > 
> > PENDING  2002-09-11: Sanjiva to describe out/out-in for pub-sub. [I
> >                      think this should be pub-sub _without_ 
> > out/out-in.]
> >  
> >                      2002-09019:  Form a task force (Joyce, 
> > Sandeep, Igor,
> >                      Steve T, Sanjiva, Adi, Roberto, Amy) to prepare
> > presentation
> >                      about adding pub/sub as a first class 
> > citizen of WSDL
> > 1.2.
> > 
> >                      Sanjiva will send a note to the list 
> describing a
> > starting 
> >                      position and seeking comment.
> > 
> > PENDING  2002-09-11: Jeffrey and Don define TCP binding.
> > 
> > New Actions as of 2002-09-19:
> > 
> >          2002-09-19: Sanjiva will write a Java binding
> > 
> >          2002-09-19: Sanjiva provide updates on Use Scenarios 
> > document to
> >                      Architecture Group.  
> >                      Need to determine whether this activity 
> > should be in
> > the
> >                      architecture group or moved outside.  
> > 
> > [5] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0019.html
> > [6] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Jul/0016.html
> > [7] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0055.html
> > [8] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0054.html
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 4.  FTF planning:
> > 
> >     Nov F2F:
> > 
> > 2002-09-19:  No joint meeting time scheduled with the Architecture
> >              group at present.  Can schedule if needed.  Rooms
> >              available for 3 days of solid meeting.
> >  
> >              Meetings will be planned from Monday AM through 
> > Wednesday PM.
> > 
> >     Jan FTF.
> >  
> > 2002-09-19: Sri Lanka or Sydney?  About 25 people stated they could
> >             attend in Sydney.  3 people stated they could 
> not travel.
> >             Jonathan will poll working group to ensure that Sydney
> >             will work.  Host Art Hague, not member of working group.
> > 
> >             Alternatives if Sri Lanka or Sydney do not work out:
> >               Vancouver, BC [Dave Orchard]
> >               Toronto, ON  [Arthur Ryman]
> >               New York, NY [Sanjiva Weerawarana]
> > 
> >             Plan would be to meet week of January 14 or 21. 
>  Need firm
> >             offers by next week (2002-09-19)
> > 
> >   Tech plenary March 3-7 in Boston, we could meet 3-4 or 6-7.
> > 
> > 2002-09-19: Do we want a meeting in conjunction with Tech Plenary?
> >             General consensus is yes, some concern with only 2 days
> >             of meeting and conflicts with other working groups.
> > 
> >             Plan is to go forward with planning WG F2F at 
> > Tech Plenary.
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 5.  Arch harvesting of WSDL [9].  Need reviewers.
> > 
> > 2002-09-19:  Arch group is attempting to harvest some of our work.
> >              Who can take a look and see if they are taking 
> good stuff
> >              from them.
> > 
> >              Jean-Jacques -- document looks reasonable.
> > 
> >              Pending:  Review next week. Would like input from more
> > individuals.
> > 
> > [9] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jul/0349.html
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 6.   Requirements [10]
> >      Need to finish up and publish again.
> > 
> > 2002-09-19: Table for one week.  Need information from Gudge on
> >             Semantic Web requirement.  
> > 
> >             Action:  Review document for 9/26/02 meeting.
> > 
> > [10]
> > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/requirements/
> ws-desc-reqs.h
> > tml#binddesc
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 7.  New Issues
> > 	WSDL and INLINE Schema Definitions [11]
> > 
> > 2002-09-19:  Gudge had indicated new issues to be added. 
> > 
> >              Enumeration of potential issues: 
> >               - Disallow importing of schemas except via
> >               - No predefined types of elements added to an 
> > embedded schema
> >               - Schema embedded in WSDL must have target 
> > namespace.  Cannot
> > define
> >                 names in the undeclared namespace.
> >   
> >               Follow-up left to the editors.
> > 
> > [11] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0025.html
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 8.  BindingType proposal from Kevin [12].
> >     Response from Jacek [13].
> > 
> > 2002-09-19:  Jeffery raised some concerns:
> >              - new user/novice user will find it hard to understand
> >                where information should go.  Can be addressed 
> > by adding
> >                a new attribute 
> >              - data model for binding is inconsistent with 
> > other models.  
> >              - should we consider this with Sanjiva's proposal?
> >              - can we break this down into small issues that can be
> > considered
> >                separately?
> > 
> >              Jacek -- concerns were summarized well.  
> > Reusable binding is
> > aim.
> >              This idea is probably 2.0 material and not 1.2.  
> > 
> >              Roberto -- Clarifying question:  The use of term 
> > binding type
> >              is confusing.  Port and port type have a clear 
> > relationship.
> >              This proposal doesn't have a clear mapping.  
> > Binding & Binding
> >              type.  Kevin agrees that a better name would be useful.
> > 
> >              Is the group interested in continuing to pursue 
> > this action?
> > 
> >              Straw Poll says we should continue to pursue.
> >                 Continue:  13
> >                 Stop:       1
> >                 Abstain:   11
> > 
> >              Kevin asks that anyone with particular issues or 
> > concerns let
> >              him know so he can attempt to address them.
> > 
> >              Revisit next week.
> > 
> > [12] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Aug/0009.html
> > [13] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0043.html
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 9.  Issue 2: SOAPAction has been deprecated, as of SOAP 1.2 [14].
> >     Jean-Jacques proposal at [15].  Jacek's addendum at [16].
> > 
> > 2002-09-19:  Jean-Jacques summary:  WG wanted something better then
> > SOAPAction.
> >              Want a more general method in WSDL.  Introduce new
> >              element <http:field> to the HTTP binding.  Also, 
> > introduce an
> >              equivalent <soap:field> element to the SOAP binding.
> > 
> >              Jacek -- proposed name change as well as noted 
> that some
> >              transports do not need to have MIME fields, 
> and most MIME
> >              fields will not have parameters.  Current 
> proposal leaves
> >              to much room for inconsistencies. 
> > 
> >              Glen -- this relates to a proposal on properties 
> > [24], there
> >              is a general pattern we should consider. 
> > 
> >              Jonathan -- group needs to review the property 
> > stuff in more
> > detail.  
> > 
> >              SOAP Action can turn into a property.
> > 
> >              Do we need to make a late comment to the XML 
> > Protocol group?  
> > 
> >              ACTION:  Glen will look and see status of SOAP 
> > Actions.  Draft
> >              potential last call comment to XML Protocols Group.  
> > 
> > [14] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x2
> > [15] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0050.html
> > [16] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0056.html
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 10. Issue 18: Default for transport of <soap:binding> [17]. 
> Jeffrey's
> > proposal at [18].
> > 
> > 2002-09-19:  This item was closed at 2002-09-05 teleconference:
> >              Resolution (per 2002-09-05 minutes):
> >                   Issue 18 to be closed per [18] to make 
> the transport
> > attribute
> >                   mandatory for the <soap:binding> element.
> > 
> >                   Issue 28 still open and may be discussed at 
> > F2F if time
> > permits.
> > 
> > 
> > [17] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x18
> > [18] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0122.html
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 11. Issue 28: transport='uri' [19]
> > 
> > 2002-09-19:  Defer until after Glen's proposal.
> > 
> > [19] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x28
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 12. HTTP Binding Issues (6a, 41)
> >     Jeffrey recommends no change [20].
> >     Sanjiva is mulling this over [21].
> > 
> >     2002-09-19:  Waiting on Sanjiva -- need to introduce HTTP header
> >                  and / or cookie as part of binding.  Differ 
> > until after
> >                  Glen's proposal.
> > 
> >                  Should this issue be broadened to say 
> support of all
> >                  features of the transport.  Again, Glen's 
> > proposal will
> >                  spur this conversation along.
> > 
> > [20] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0102.html
> > [21] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0067.html
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 13. Issue 25: Interaction between W3C XML Schema and SOAP 
> Data Model 
> >     Gudge's explains at [22], Roberto's options at [23].
> >     Waiting for more detail in ACM?
> > 
> >     2002-09-19:  Waiting for Gudge to provide more detail/wisdom
> >                  on abstract component model. 
> > 
> > [22] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0186.html
> > [23] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0071.html
> > 
> > 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > 14. A slice at a proposal for SOAP features/properties in WSDL [24].
> >     Glen Daniels
> > 
> >     2002-09-19:  Move up on agenda for next week, key to a 
> lot of the
> >                  binding work.
> > 
> >                  Read proposal for next week.
> > 
> > [24] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0004.html
> > 
> > Respectfully submitted,
> > 
> > Bill Stumbo   
> > Xerox Innovation Group
> > Solutions & Services Technology Center
> > 
> > wstumbo@crt.xerox.com
> >     Phone:	585.422.0616
> >     Fax:	585.265.8424
> > 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 02:44:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT