W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2003

Minutes, 10 April 2003 WSDesc telcon

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: 10 Apr 2003 14:01:45 -0400
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <1049997704.1011.35.camel@jfouffa.w3.org>

Participants

 Mike Ballantyne	Electronic Data Systems
 Lily Liu		webMethods
 Jeff Mischkinsky	Oracle
 Kevin Canyang Liu	SAP
 David Booth		W3C
 Allen Brookes		Rogue Wave Software
 Youenn Fablet		Canon
 Tom Jordahl		Macromedia
 Philippe Le Hégaret	W3C, chair
 Amelia Lewis		TIBCO
 Steve Lind		AT&T
 Ingo Melzer		DaimlerChrysler
 Dale Moberg		Cyclone Commerce
 Arthur Ryman		IBM, scribe
 Jeffrey Schlimmer	Microsoft
 William Vambenepe	Hewlett-Packard
 Prasad Yendluri	webMethods, Inc.
 Jacek Kopecky		Systinet
 Jerry Thrasher	        Lexmark
 Martin Gudgin	        Microsoft
 Erik Ackerman          Lexmark
 Jean-Jacques Moreau	Canon
 Steven White           SeeBeyond
 Umit Yalcinalp         Oracle
 Sanjiva Weerawarana	IBM (12:05)

Regrets:

 Glen Daniels		Macromedia
 Sandeep Kumar		Cisco Systems
 Dietmar Gaertner	Software AG
 Igor Sedukhin		Computer Associates
 Jonathan Marsh		Microsoft
 Roberto Chinnici	Sun Microsystems

1 Assign scribe: Arthur Ryman

2.  Approval of minutes of April 3 telcon

David: the title of the minutes is not really appropriate...

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Apr/att-0019/20030403.irc.log.html

Minutes approved.

3.  Review of Action items [.1].

?         2003-01-21: Roberto and gudge to create a branch and work up
                      a binding proposal based on referencing type
                      systems directly from operation components.
                      (Umit's example, Sanjiva's example, WSDL 1.1
                      example, and others.)
?         2003-02-27: Sanjiva to send summary of 
                      one-portType-per-service issue.
?         2003-03-04: Editors to discuss markup for testable assertions
                      in the spec and come back with a strategy.
?         2003-03-04: Jonathan to recruit a QA contact for the WG.
?         2003-03-04: Jonathan to recruit a test contact for the WG.
PENDING   2003-03-13: Editors will find part 2 issues to dispatch 
                      easily next telcon.
DONE [.5] 2003-03-13: Philippe will make a proposal concerning issue 
                      28 using features and properties.
DONE [.2] 2003-03-13: GlenD to propose a Property representation of 
                      SOAP action parameter of application/soap+xml
                      type
?         2003-03-13: Don will write a proposal for annotating schema 
                      with part information.
?         2003-03-27: Jonathan will follow-up with editors to figure 
                      out how to improve the prose of the spec to be 
                      aligned with schema.
PENDING   2003-03-27: Philippe write up a proposal for embedding bindary
                      data types in schema
PENDING   2003-04-03: Arthur to bring discussion to group in two weeks 
                      (more or less) for solutions to R085 
PENDING   2003-04-03: Arthur to coordinate work on WSDL validator

Arthur: IBM looked at W3C Sofware license terms: so far looks good. Next
step is to put things in place within IBM.

?         2003-04-03: Editors to include normative schema language in 
                      spec (conformance section?); schema to be 
                      separate, in TR space. 
PENDING   2003-04-03: Jonathan to respond to OWL with "no plans to 
                      review, no resources, little knowledge of 
                      why requested". 
DONE [.3] 2003-04-03: Philippe to bring proposal to attention of M 
                      Baker, P Prescod, R Costello, forward responses 
                      to group 
DONE [.4] 2003-04-03: Philippe to supply some example syntax for HTTP
                      binding proposal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
4.  Administrivia
  a. May FTF [.1].

     Registration [.2] closes on Apr 15th.
     Dead line for hotel is May 1st.

  b. Sept FTF (looking for West Coast host).

   <unknown>

  c. Usage Scenarios [.3].  Jonathan's still pretending to track this.

   <unknown>

  d. QA contact, test lead recruitment.

   <unknown>

  e. TF status

  MEP TF:
   David: good progress with Amy this week. Hope will be able to make
   progress next week with Gudge. Amy will try to get Don to join.
  FnP TF:
   <glen sent regrets>

  f. XML Schema 1.0 Second Edition review [.4]

   Philippe: We may want to provide input on XML Schema 1.0 Second
   Edition.
   Gudge: Nothing in it will adversely affect WSDL.

------------------------------------------------------------------
5.  New Issues.  Merged issues list [.1].

  - none

--------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Issue 2: SOAPAction has been deprecated, as of SOAP 1.2 [.1].
    Jean-Jacques proposal at [.2].
    Jacek's addendum at [.3].
    proposal from Glen at [.4].


 Topic: Property-based action syntax

 Jean-Jacques: Update on SOAP 1.2. There is a URI for action.
  + the following fixes in a bug in Glen's proposal:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Apr/0022.html

 Tom: We shouldn't remove it since it is in WSDL 1.1 since new property
 syntax is complex

 Amy: Disagree. Shouldn't make HTTP a special case.

 Tom: OK to do this both ways. Old way is "syntactic sugar".

 Philippe: What do we gain by having a property syntax?

 Amy: consistency

 Jean-Jacques: It is possible to automatically transform the WSDL 1.1
 syntax into the proposed PnF syntax

 pro - consistency, con - ease of migration from WSDL 1.1

 Jeffrey: good idea not to force change to existing, working syntax, but
 also good to move forward

 Tom: tools help authoring process but developers still need to read
 WSDL to understand problems, e.g. in code generation from WSDL2Java.
 PnF is more consistent syntax but requires knowledge of many URIs

 Jacek: SOAPAction is a candidate for special treatment

 Jean-Jacques: Web-Method is also likely to have to be represented as a
 feature

 Philippe: strawpoll:
  Choice 1: Keep WSDL 1.1 syntax
  Choice 2: use PnF
  Choice 3: use WSDL 1.1 and PnF

 X - William
 A - Mike
 A - Kevin
 A - David
 A - Philippe
 A - SteveL
 A - Dale
 A - Prasad
 A - SteveW
 1 - Tom
 1 - Arthur
 1 or 2 - Umit
 1 or 2 - JeffM
 2 - Youenn
 2 - Ingo
 2 - Jacek
 2 - Jerry
 2 - Jean-Jacques
 2 or 3 - Amy
 3 - Lily
 3 - Allen Brookes
 3 - JeffreyS
 3 - Martin
 3 - Erick

 A - 8
 1 - 4
 2 - 8
 3 - 6

Philippe: no decision this week.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
7.  BindingType proposal from Kevin [.1].  Updated proposal at [.2].

Topic: BindingType proposal

Kevin: Idea is to separate out binding detail into a separate construct
so it can be reused. syntax of binding and interface has stabilized so
let's reopen the discussion now. Here an updated proposal:

<bindingDetail name = "ncname" target = "binding|operation|message" ...>* 
 <!-- target attribute specifies where the details can be applied in
 binding construct -->

     <wsdl:documentation .... /> ?
     <!-- binding details -->
</bindingDetail>

<binding name="ncname" interface = "qname" detail = "list of qnames" ...>*

  <!-- the detail attribute may be a list of qnames, if conflicts
  present , the first in the list takes preference -->

      <wsdl:documentation .... /> ?

      <operation name="ncname" detail = "list of qnames"? ...>*
        <!-- if the detail attribute is not provided, it gets its value
        from its parent. same below -->
             <wsdl:documentation .... /> ?
            <input name="ncname"? detail = "list of qnames"? ... >?
     <wsdl:documentation .... /> ?
            </input> 
           <output name="ncname"? detail = "list of qnames"? ...>?
     <wsdl:documentation .... /> ?
            </output>
           <fault name="ncname"? detail = "list of qnames"? ...>*
     <wsdl:documentation .... /> ?
            </fault>
       </operation>
</binding>

Gudge: Does this proposal incorporate the notion of layering,
e.g. defering detail. First define the use of SOAP and then reuse it
HTTP and SMTP for example?

Kevin: No. 

Kevin: the bindingdetail is required and is the only place you can
specify binding. you must reference a bindingdetail from a binding.

JacekK: compare with Sanjiva's proposal. Kevin's is more reusable but
more complex than Sanjiva's, so let's revisit Sanjiva's:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/att-0117/01-bindings-2002-07-24.html
 [Jacek presents Sanjiva's proposal]

Kevin: Is binding reusability worth the extra complexity

Tom: Reusability of binding details is less of a problem now that we can
"hoist" binding details - this reduces the amount of repetition

Philippe: so we have 3 "proposals": Kevin, Sanjiva, and Tom. Tom's one
doesn't preclude others though.

JacekK: pls clarify Tom's proposal

Tom: we now allow hoisting details, e.g. operation detail can be hoisted
to the interface, so there is no repetition within a binding, but also
no reuse across bindings

[Sanjiva joins the call]

Sanjiva: hoisting eliminates a lot of redundancy. providing defaults for
binding details would be a simplification. Another possible
simplification: if its a one-off binding, inline it inside the <port>
itself and avoid creating a named binding. That combined with defaulting
to doc/lit (er, I mean rpc/encoded ;-)) would go a long way to reducing
WSDL doc size

Philippe: close current discussion, put back on agenda next week
including Sanjiva's previous proposal and the idea of providing defaults
for bindings

Gudge: wasn't sanjiva's previous proposal tied in with serviceType?

Sanjiva: yes it was .. I just opened it up and its quite different. It
was focused on creating reusable bindings.

Umit: two issues: reusability and conciseness

Jeffrey: Attribute roll-up (old) and defaults (new) are related to conciseness?

ACTION: Sanjiva to rewrite his proposal on bindings

--------------------------------------------------------------------
8.  Issue 6e [.1]
  - Arthur's proposal on URL replacement [.2].
    Plan to do the obvious cleanup suggested by Arthur, and fork the
    rest into an R85 solution.

[pending R85]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
9.  Issues 53-55 [.1]
  - Philippe's proposal for HTTP binding [.2]. 

Philippe: Not enough time for adequate review. defer to next week.

Sanjiva: extend replacement to SOAP Action URI

[No takers to write a proposal to extend URLReplacement to SOAPAction
URI. the SOAPAction idea is tied into the binding defaults so sanjiva
will address this at his discretion]

[meeting adjourned. Don't forget to register for May f2f.]
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 14:01:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:23 GMT