See also: IRC log
Present: Erik Ackerman Lexmark Mike Ballantyne Electronic Data Systems David Booth W3C Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems Glen Daniels Macromedia Youenn Fablet Canon Steve Graham Global Grid Forum Martin Gudgin Microsoft Tom Jordahl Macromedia Jacek Kopecky Systinet Philippe Le Hégaret W3C Amelia Lewis TIBCO Steve Lind AT&T Lily Liu webMethods Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft) Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon Arthur Ryman IBM Adi Sakala IONA Technologies Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM Steven White SeeBeyond Umit Yalcinalp Oracle Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
Regrets: Dietmar Gaertner Software, AG Kevin Canyang Liu SAP Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates Jerry Thrasher Lexmark Barbara Zengler DaimlerChrysler, Research, and, Technology
Chair: Jonathan Marsh
Scribe: dmoberg
Scribe: Role call taken.
JM: Minutes approval postponed to next week
JM: Roberto&Gudge may have something by next week on Message mods.
Roberto: Interaction of proposal with new binding features difficult to anticipate
Scribe: DONE: All editors items closed
<Philippe> regrets from Jeff for Monday
JM: Many observers signed up for f2f
JM: One main goal--finish up part 1.
... Here are some residual issues-- fault name, type&element&modelgroup for type
Arthur: porttype and binding interdependency
JM: Get rid of element? type? leave it alone?
Scribe: Arthur's proposal -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0055.html
... properties and features, major residual part 1 issue
<Philippe> Gudge's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Feb/0046.html
<Gudge> ta
JM: review period needed? Sanjiva wants operation name review time before publication.
Scribe: Properties Features Task Force
<Philippe> PFTF minuets: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-pnf-tf/2003Feb/0047.html
<jjm> Scenario list at: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12-pftf-usage-cenarios.html
<Gudge> For the log: I hope the proposal (GD) includes how it affects the component model
<jjm> will do (but probably not next week)
Scribe: GD uses example to motivate Features syntax...
... Gudge wants component model for Features
<Philippe> "Interface (AKA Port Type)"/InterfaceBinding/"EndPoint (AKA Port)"/
... in http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/requirements/ws-desc-reqs.html#definitions
Scribe: F2f item-- renaming of elements and attributes--have your list ready
... porttype to interface, binding to interfacebinding?
... ACTION: Phillippe to write up list of renamings
<Gudge> Excellent, we can have a language that rhymes
<alewis> When the WSDL writers waffle on the naming of designs
... And the WSDL authors author without operation binds ....
... Then the service serves as sources for the various new kinds
... Of choreogro-process-flow until all the nets go blind!
Scribe: JM Context to be sent along sometimes. Is this a wsdl concern?
<jeffsch> SOAP headers are not defined in port type but in the SOAP binding
Sanjiva: Context is headers and environment and how Feature realized in a binding
Scribe: GD context covered under Features&Prop stuff
... Sanjiva allows subsuming context under P&F for discussion
JM: Moving on, fault naming
Scribe: topic Fault naming.
Gudge: MEP features on porttypes needs names on faults.
... MEP proposals are written up in a separate document. Address on mailing list.
JM: F2f agenda item review of the proposal and the 7 MEPs
... Let's skip over agenda item 8 to 9: And Sanjiva updated proposal
Scribe: Noah M. on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Jan/0059.html
dmoberg: I saw messages on a SOAP list about using complex as the only type system. It seems pertinent to some of our debates concerning getting rid of parts and using only xsd types. Maybe we should look at what they're saying.
Sanjiva: says we need to line up with xmlp on attachments, types, MIME, xsd types.
Scribe: Gudge says we can go independently
... JS Wonders how connected the issues really are
... Dale agrees with Sanjiva on synching up.
... Sanjiva says that the attachments and parts xmlp structure may support keeping parts
... Roberto says that the impact on bindings makes the xmlp issue relevant
<jeffsch> Our decision about whether to include an explicit message construct may be orthogonal to whether the XMLP WG decides on a simple or composite message model.
... I agree that we can simpify their use case if/when we know what they're going to do.
<jjm> Jeff, would we be able to describe a non-infoset binding with complexTypes only?
<jeffsch> I agree it is less natural, but then we're back to the issue of whether our WG needs to define another representational type system
Scribe: Allegation that someone has suggested that WSDL 1.1 MIME bindings broken?!?
<fishmonge> no luck fishing today
Scribe: Sanjiva? Mime types to be made 1st class
JM: encourages us to be prepared to wrap up part one issues
Scribe: Another issue http binding, bindingtype issue from Kevin, any takers?
<trout1> The MEP proposal e-mail is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Feb/0052.html
Scribe: Scribe disrupted and recovering-- Alewis concern about service
<jeffsch> Sanjiva: Is a service restricted to a single port type
... Gudge: A service has > 0 ports, port has 1 binding, binding has 1 port type, so service > 0 port types
Scribe: scribe thanks jeffsch for backfilling.
alewis: Mismatch concerns: adding porttype attribute to service may add redundancy and consequent room for error
Sanjiva: Binding must implement all of operations...
JM: Sanjiva will summarize issue about service, port, binding, porttype.
<Marsh> ACTION: JM to dig up the history on Service issue.