See also: IRC log
David Booth W3C
Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software
Youenn Fablet Canon
Martin Gudgin Microsoft
Tom Jordahl Macromedia
Jacek Kopecky Systinet
Philippe Le Hégaret W3C
Steve Lind AT&T
Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
Lily Liu webMethods
Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft)
Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce
Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon
Don Mullen Tibco
Arthur Ryman IBM
Adi Sakala IONA Technologies
Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates
Jerry Thrasher Lexmark
William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
Umit Yalcinalp Oracle
Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
Erik Ackerman Lexmark
Glen Daniels Macromedia
Dietmar Gaertner Software AG
Steve Graham Global Grid Forum
Ingo Melzer DaimlerChrysler
Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft
Scribe: The agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Apr/0053.html
Scribe: Last week's minutes approved: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Apr/0031.html
Scribe: PENDING ACTION: 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.)
... PENDING ACTION: 2003-02-27: Sanjiva to send summary of one-portType-per-service issue.
... PENDING ACTION: 2003-03-04: Editors to discuss markup for testable assertions in the spec and come back with a strategy.
... PENDING ACTION: 2003-03-04: Jonathan to recruit a QA contact for the WG.
... PENDING ACTION: 2003-03-04: Jonathan to recruit a test contact for the WG.
... PENDING ACTION: 2003-03-13: Editors will find part 2 issues to dispatch easily next telcon.
... PENDING ACTION: 2003-03-13: Don will write a proposal for annotating schema with part information.
... PENDING ACTION: 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.
Sanjiva: That's the issue of whether the schema or the prose is normative. WG decided to have the Schema normative.
Scribe: PENDING ACTION: 2003-03-27: Philippe write up a
proposal for embedding bindary data types in schema
... 2003-04-03: Arthur to bring discussion to group in two weeks (more or less) for solutions to R085
Arthur: News was WS-Addressing spec. I will come up with a proposal that references WS-Addressing.
Philippe: You want WSDL to use WS-Addressing?
Arthur: I think WS-Addressing reflects user requirements that a number of vendors have.
Philippe: Linking an non-normative doc from ours may be a problem.
JMarsh: We could either reference it (non-normatively), or use parts, etc.,
Scribe: DONE: 2003-04-03: Arthur to coordinate work on WSDL validator
Philippe: I will work with Arthur on that.
Scribe: PENDING ACTION: 2003-04-03: Editors to include
normative schema language in spec (conformance section?); schema to be
separate, in TR space.
... DONE: 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 ACTION: 2003-04-03: Jonathan to respond to OWL with "no plans to review, no resources, little knowledge of why requested".
... PENDING ACTION: 2003-04-10: Sanjiva to rewrite his proposal on bindings.
Sanjiva: I'll have it ready for the F2F.
<umit> I have joined, please include me into the count.
Sanjiva: We have Kevin's proposal also.
... Part of my proposal is that there be a way to "in-line" binding info.
JMarsh: It would be great to see that before the F2F.
Sanjiva: Ok, i'll try to do that.
TomJ: Two issues. One was simplifying, the other was reuse.
Sanjiva: I'm talking about simplification, not reuse.
TomJ: Maybe there shouldn't be more work on this.
JMarsh: Three options then: Sanjiva's proposal, Kevin's
proposal, or do nothing.
... Need to see Sanjiva's proposal first.
Sanjiva: I expect to address the reuse problem, like what we have now.
Scribe: (Talking about Rennes F2F)
Youenn: We will have high-speed internet access.
Philippe: And a speaker phone?
Scribe: ACTION: Youenn to see about getting a speaker phone for the F2F
Jonathan: It needs to be a GOOD speaker phone.
Philippe: Good progress on the MEP TF, in identifying the different assumptions people have made.
<Gudge> some were assuming 'not necessarily' WRT whether an output message goes to a single node
dbooth: E.g., whether there is "conservation of messages", and whether in Input/Output Patterns the result goes back to the original requester or not.
Philippe: Re: XML Schema 1.0 Second Edition, Gudge says there aren't significant changes that will affect us, so we believed him. :)
Scribe: ACTION: JMarsh to respond to XML Schema's request for review
JMarsh: No new issues
Scribe: (Question is whether to allow WSDL 1.1 syntax, PnF syntax, or both)
JMarsh: Last week there was a straw poll, and there was a
pretty even distribution.
... Any new thoughts on this?
Arthur: The PnF syntax is huge.
Philippe: We already agreed to have PnF. If we put the SOAP Action inside the PnF, would we reject it?
JMarsh: We can't preclude people from using Soap Action Property if they want.
<igors> for scribe: igor has just joined the call... you may mark me up in attendance...
Youenn: If we invent factorization of features, we will not be able to do that with SOAP action.
<Philippe> example of WSDL 1.2 with SOAP 1.2 using Fnp: http://www.w3.org/2003/04/14-Validator.wsdl
Youenn: We can define a feature at the binding level and the
... Option 2 has benefits, because we have global features we can use in the Soap Action case.
JMarsh: What does it mean to support PnF syntax?
... We can't preclude anyone from including any URI, including this one.
Philippe: If the WSDL processor want's to understand 1.2, then yes it should understand this URI. But not necessarily the Soap Property.
JJM: In Soap 1.2 there is also the Web Method feature, which we need to represent.
JMarsh: If I use WEb Method, do I need the required attribute?
Gudge: Wouldn't we list the properties that must be supported
in the definition of a particular binding?
... E.g., in the HTTP binding, we would say that a processor that supports this binding would also have to support these properties from SOAP 1.2.
JJM: That would be similar to what Soap 1.2 does.
JMarsh: Is Soap Action fundamental enough to support in shorthand syntax?
Sanjiva: We need to define a pragmatic line, to special case fundamental things.
Philippe: I've been trying to get guidelines from Glen between using PnF versus our own features.
JMarsh: It sounds like we need to look at the guidelines from the PnF TF.
JMarsh: Waiting for Sanjiva's proposal
Scribe: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Mar/0059.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Mar/0059.html>
JMarsh: Only R85 remains on this issue.
Philippe: I pinged MBaker, Paul Prescott and Robert Costello
... Got a response from MBaker.
... Similar to the other proposal that I made, for having PnF represent the interface level also.
... [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Mar/0068.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Mar/0068.html>
JMarsh: Can we take action on your proposal?
JMarsh: Any problems with Philippe's proposal?
Scribe: (No response)
JMarsh: Anyone want more time to read it?
Scribe: (no response)
Philippe: Somehow the HTTP binding and SOAP binding will be mixed for the GET case.
Arthur: With URL replacement it might also be relevant for POST.
JMarsh: Do we need to solve this issue first?
Arthur: Maybe factor out pure HTTP binding and SOAP HTTP binding.
Sanjiva: Lots of binding issues that are interdependent. Maybe relevant people could come the day before the F2F to work these things out.
Scribe: People interested: JJM, Arthur, Sanjiva, Philippe (but cannot do it the day after).
Umit: What about how we deal with the message? Would that be included in this meeting?
JMarsh: Let's push that on the stack for the moment.
Scribe: ACTION: Sanjiva, Philippe and Arthur to meet the day
before the F2F to talk about bindings
... ACTION: Sanjiva to take the lead on coordinating the meeting on bindings the day before the F2F
<Lily> prepare better for F2F?
JMarsh: What prep is needed for F2F?
... Roberto and Gudge had an action item to explain how message might be removed, but couldn't make progress without knowing how the bindings will look.
... But it's a circular problem.
Arthur: We already have the 1.1 binding. It would help us if we say how removing message in 1.1 would look.
Gudge: Already did that, and nobody was happy.
Sanjiva: Why, because of XPath?
JMarsh: Umit was concerned that it's easy to split things apart with XPath but harder to put it back together.
Umit: The other issue was the concept of a part, that part would be moved to the binding. That's a fundamental difference in thinking.
<Gudge> thread started here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Feb/0005.html
Gudge: I couldn't get past that, because I don't understand it.
Arthur: Part was how to deal with MIME types. Gudge put out a new proposal.
<Gudge> and ends here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Mar/0013.html
Arthur: If you eliminate parts, then you need MIME types in XML.
JMarsh: Philippe was going to make a proposal for embedding
binary type in Schema.
... Should someone extract the relevant parts of that proposal?
<Gudge> ACTION: Gudge to dig out MIME type related parts of Proposed Addendum to SOAP with Attachments proposal ( as sent to XMLP ) and post to WSDesc Discussion list
Philippe: I haven't read the attachment proposal, so it might address my concern.
Philippe: The action item was closed.
... This is linked to our PnF proposal also.
... We have 3 groups: One targetted to the interface level, 2 for the SOAP binding.
... Can send an image in, saying if the operation is a retrieve, then you can cache the reply.
... It could be mapped to HTTP GET, but also to POST.
... Normally you can't cache POST, but if you know more then you could.
... SOAP already proposes the Web Method feature and property for PUT/GET/POST/DELETE.
... But I'm not using the same URIs as SOAP, because those are bound to SOAP itself.
... Also this proposal doesn't deal with HTTP headers.
Jacek: How does this relate to the issue of removing the transport URI?
Philippe: This proposal was targeted mostly to HTTP.
... Do you have a way to represent the URI for the transport?
Jacek: Would it be a property inside the SOAP binding in WSDL?
Philippe: Could be.
JMarsh: What is the relation between communicating the crud and the transport?
Philippe: Jacek is right that my proposal does not exactly
address the problem.
... It was presented to the PnF TF.
JMarsh: Are there concerns with Philippe's proposal?
Jacek: It would not resolve the issue 28
JMarsh: Then where does it belong?
Philippe: I need to review old minutes to see how we ended up where we did.
JMarsh: So we're not sure this proposal is the right thing
for issue 28.
... Is your proposal ready to be adopted?
Philippe: This issue will come back again in relation to agendum 9 (Philippe's proposal for HTTP binding).
JMarsh: Let's combine it with that one.
Scribe: [Meeting adjourned]
... ACTION: Jacek to make a proposal for issue 28