This is the complete version, possibly with confidential material, of the minutes.
1. Assign scribe. Lucky minute taker for this week is: Steve Lind
2. Approval of minutes: the minutes [.1] of the previous conference call were approved
3. Review of Action items [.1].
Don will write a proposal for annotating schema
with part information.
Philippe write up a proposal for embedding binary
data types in schema
? 2003-05-13: DaveO to send a motivating example for R131.
Jeffsch, Sanjiva, Glen, Umit, JJM to come up with
a proposal to get rid with the message construct,
and add programming hints.
Kevin to contact Sanjiva and try to merge
Jacek to synthesize the different approaches
to solving issue 64.
DONE [.2] 2003-06-12: Arthur to summarize his concerns
proposal by email.
DONE [.4] 2003-06-19: Roberto to rewrite up an email about
to use "xs:any" or substitution groups, or both,
for our extensibility mechanism.
DONE [.3] 2003-06-19: Igor to write up about pros and
cons of the
single service proposal.
DONE [.3] 2003-06-19: Igor to come up with a new diagram.
a. July FTF logistics [.1], registration [.2]
<sdl-scribe> JM: f2f: start wed morning; end early on Fridayb. 16 May 2003: The Web Services Task Force [.3] of the
<sdl-scribe> JM: good idea to review Internationalization WG draft and see if any ideasc. XPath, XQuery, XSLT Last Call document review [.5].
<sdl-scribe> JM: Is there any reason or interest to review XSL WG documents?[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/3/05/f2fJulyLogistics.htm
<sdl-scribe> David: assume people would be interested based on desire to use, not a direct correlation with Desc WG
<sdl-scribe> JM: we're not on the hook for any formal response
<sdl-scribe> ... Any volunteers to review?
* jeffsch believes XPath etc is v. important but regrets to say that he's overcommitted at present...
<sdl-scribe> David: anyone looking to use XPath?
<sdl-scribe> Arthur: we should probably use the most recent spec
<sdl-scribe> JM: Don't want to get into the subset game again
<sdl-scribe> Arthur: 1.0 a subset of 2.0? is there backward compatibility?
<sdl-scribe> JM: for the most part
<sdl-scribe> JM: as a WG, we won't do it and no one is volunteering
5. Task Force Status.
a. Properties and Features (dormant)
<sdl-scribe> doing survey of what people think of variations
<sdl-scribe> David: variations of same basic pattern we've always been discussing
d. QA & Testing
6. New Issues. Merged issues list [.1].
- Error in diagram (David) [.2]. Jacek's additional (?) problem [.3].
<sdl-scribe> David: diagram shows interfaces pointing to resource; not what we currently have in data model
<sdl-scribe> ... we have service pointing to resource
<sdl-scribe> Arthur: purpose not to show syntax
<sdl-scribe> David: but should show symantics
<sdl-scribe> Arthur: resource directly implements the interface
<sdl-scribe> ... interface is reusable
<sdl-scribe> Umit: can have same interface related to two different resources
<dbooth> the _resource_ does NOT implement the interface. The _service_ implements the interface.
<sdl-scribe> Jonathan: would it help not to have an arrow there?
<sdl-scribe> ... Description of the interface can be reused
<sdl-scribe> JacekK: if we called the thing an instance of the interface; bindings between that and the resource
<sdl-scribe> David: need to be precise in our terminology
<sdl-scribe> ... WSDL construction of service is an abstract thing; interface syntax describes an abstract thing we can call an interface
<Philippe> Jacek's diagram: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jun/0117.html
<sdl-scribe> JacekK: Interface is exposed by its URL
<sdl-scribe> David: given a resource isn't necessarily a piece of software, how can it have an interface?
* jeffsch notes that the term "resource" is subtle and that smart people have a difficult time agreeing on its precise definition
<sdl-scribe> Arthur: David trying to turn diagram into close representation of the WSDL
<sdl-scribe> Resource is black box; don't know how it is built but can do things with it.
<sdl-scribe> can group actions into an interface
* alewis notes that "resource" seems to be used as a weasel-word, having approximately the meaning "wotsit"
<sdl-scribe> bindings and end point are still more concrete
<sdl-scribe> binding specifies the mapping of the concrete end point
<sdl-scribe> JacekK: disagree - interface can be applied to many different resource or resource can have many different interfaces
<sdl-scribe> for each interface, can have different bindings
<sdl-scribe> Jonathan: all things in diagram are concrete?
* JacekK agrees that what Jonathan just described is the source of confusion - different terms 'interface' and 'binding' in the diagram and in WSDL
<sdl-scribe> Arthur: Resource exposes the interface
<sanjiva> +1 to not having arrows!
<sdl-scribe> ... need to say what the arrow means
* sanjiva didn't realize the picture graph had a circularity
* Ingo agrees with umit
<sdl-scribe> Jonathan: have 2 camps - directly aligned with syntax or descibes an instance
<dbooth> ACTION: dbooth to propose definitions for "interface", "service", etc. as they pertain to the diagram
* RRSAgent records action 1
* alewis applauds JacekK
<dbooth> +1 to Jacek's comments
<jeffsch> +1 that removing wsdl:service is an odd (at best) suggestion
* jeffsch wonders if the diagram is actually helping the WG and/or readers of the specification...
* umit agrees with jeffsch (for a change :-))
* jeffsch ... are we trying to precisely define something that doesn't materially affect how the description language works?
<sdl-scribe> Jonathan: scrap the diagram?
* sanjiva thinks that the picture provides a clean semantic .. but if people can't get it and/or agree with one picture its hopeless
<sdl-scribe> David: sweeping it under the rug is not going to help peoples understanding
<Arthur> pls post the url of Jacek's ascii art
<sdl-scribe> Jonathan: do we need to include the targetResource given the thread on renaming?
<dbooth> "equivalence" of endpoints will _always_ be application-defined -- not defined by the WSDL language itself, no matter what the WSDL spec says.
<sdl-scribe> Umit: need to fix the diagram or remove it
<sdl-scribe> Jonathan: keep in WSDL the capability to tell which endpoints have equivalence
<Arthur> proposed definition of equivalence of endpoints is that WSDL should provide a means for providers of a service to indicate to clients of that service that they are free to select any endpoint from a set of given endpoints
<sanjiva> <service name="xx"> <alternative-endpoints><endpoint ../> <endpoint ../></alternative-endpoints> .. </service>
<sanjiva> (I think that's what Jeff is suggesting.)
<Arthur> furthermore, there is no implied formal definition of equivalence
<Arthur> there is only a claim by the provider that the client may choose any endpoint from a specified set
<umit> +1 to Arthur. All we are trying to do is to indicate to a client the possible multiple ways to access the same thing.
<Arthur> why not use <choice> :-)
<sanjiva> hey, let's allow people to use XSD syntax .. then we can have choices, sequences, all or whatever you want!
<sdl-scribe> JacekK proposing dropping targetResource attribute
<sdl-scribe> JeffSch proposing to drop the diagram as well
<sdl-scribe> Jonathan: target resource has value from a discovery standpoint
<sdl-scribe> objection to removing targetResource?
<sdl-scribe> JeffSch: may be people not on the call that will object
<Arthur> so targetNamespace == targetResource !
<sanjiva> Jack: We dropped definitions/@name a while ago.
* sanjiva remembers that we have to put interfaces in different TNSs already for potential inheritability
<jeffsch> Proposal to remove targetResource and leave feature of indicating 'equivalence'
<jeffsch> ... between endpoints as out of scope.
<jeffsch> Propose removing diagram and related text in Part 1.
<sdl-scribe> AmY: uncomfortable restricting service to a sinle interface
* dbooth thinks if you can't add things to your description then you've written it wrong. You should have used "include" or "imports".
<sdl-scribe> Is picture describing service or resource?
<sanjiva> To me the picture was attempting to provide semantics to a Web service. The circle showing what <wsdl:service> doesn't provide any semantics.
<sanjiva> JM point 1: anyone against removing @targetResource
<sdl-scribe> no one on call seems to object
* jeffsch except W3C\David as a proxy
<sanjiva> Q1: Should WSDL retain the information whether different endpoints are related or not?
<sanjiva> Glenn: @ F2F we decided yes
<sanjiva> Jack: we would reject the idea of indicating relations b'ween services until someone comes up with a definition of that relation and then we'd reconsider.
<sdl-scribe> JM: out of time, can't reach decision
* sdl-scribe thanks all who contributed to the minutes
Scribe: Steve Lind