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: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:53:11 +0100
Message-ID: <3DBF9DF7.8070605@crf.canon.fr>
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 GMT

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