- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:53:11 +0100
- To: "Liu Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
- CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org, jmarsh@microsoft.com
It's not just you; it's happening to me as well. Jean-Jacques. Liu, Kevin wrote: > 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 03:53:14 UTC