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

Agenda for 13 March 2003 WS Description WG

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:06:12 -0800
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C09B05309@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

0.  Dial in information (members only) [.1]:

See the public WG page [.2] for pointers to current documents and other
information, and the private page [.3] for administrative matters. 

If you have additions to the agenda, please email them to the WG list
before the start of the telcon.

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2003Mar/0003.html
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/admin


1.  Assign scribe.  Lucky minute taker for this week is:
      Jeff Mischkinsky (fallbacks Umit Yalcinalp, Steve White, 
      Erik Ackerman, Lily Liu, Steve Graham, Steve Tuecke, 
      Waqar Sadiq, Bill Stumbo, Amy Lewis)

2.  Approval of minutes of Feb 27 telcon [.1].  Kevin sent late regrets.
    Minutes [.2, .3] of the FTF, and the summary [.4] thereof.
    (correction to summary: add ACTION: Editors MEP to add an issue 
    to address request-response MEP.)

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Feb/0119.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Mar/0017.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Mar/0018.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Mar/0019.html

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.)
?         2003-01-30: Jacek to write up text on SOAP response MEP after
                      Gudge and Jeffrey send their proposal for
                      request/response MEP.
?         2003-02-13: Arthur to propose improvements to the URL 
                      replacement mechanism.
?         2003-02-13: Philippe to re-do HTTP bindings to allow 
                      per-method operation names etc.  Arthur to
DONE [.2] 2003-02-27: Philippe to push public draft out.
?         2003-02-27: Editors to capture the "XMLP WG thinks we should
                      describe attachments" issue.
?         2003-02-27: Sanjiva to send summary of 
                      one-portType-per-service issue.
?         2003-03-04: Editors will review specification guidelines by 
                      18 March.
?         2003-03-04: Chair and team will review operational guidelines 
                      by 18 March.
?         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.
?         2003-03-04: Editors of the MEPs to record in that document our

                      intention that a CR requirement be that MEPs that
                      prove their utility will be left in.  The
                      metric is that a binding (not necessarily from
                      group) which makes use of that MEP be
                      between two vendors.
?         2003-03-04: Editors MEP to add an issue to address 
                      request-response MEP
?         2003-03-04: Editors MEP to suggest meaningful names for our 
?         2003-03-04: Editors to rename MEP spec to Part 2, old Part 2 
                      becomes Part 3. 

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-20030303/

4.  Administrivia
  a. May FTF [.1]
  b. Part 2 issues.  Suggest editors propose both some low hanging 
     fruit, and some juicy morsels for the WG to consider.
  c. Usage Scenarios [.2].  Jonathan's still pretending to track this.
  d. QA contact recruitment.
  e. Test contact recruitment.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2003/ws/desc/3/05/f2fMayLogistics.htm
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2003Jan/0054.html

5.  New Issues.  Merged issues list [.1].
  - HTTP Binding examples and clarifications [.2]

[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Feb/0113.html

6.  Patterns.  
 a. We discussed (but did not resolve) adding a MEP8 to
    differentiate between generic input-output patterns and 
    request-response.  Suggest a task force to explore this issue 
    and document the pros and cons of the possible approaches.
 b. Soliciting rationale for each pattern [.1]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Mar/0016.html

7.  Properties and Features.  What more detail do we need in part 1 
    in regards to features and properties?  What should we do with 
    the PFTF?  What do we need to do to part 2?

8.  Issue 28: transport='uri' [.1]
    Dependent upon Glen's feature/property proposal.  Can we
    entertain a property-based proposal now?

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x28

9.  Issue 2: SOAPAction has been deprecated, as of SOAP 1.2 [.1].
    Jean-Jacques proposal at [.2].
    Jacek's addendum at [.3].
    Dependent upon Glen's feature/property proposal.  Can we
    entertain a property-based proposal now?

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x2
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0050.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0056.html

10. BindingType proposal from Kevin [.1].  Updated proposal at [.2].
    Do we still have "hard" dependencies?

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Aug/0009.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0068.html

11. HTTP Binding Issues (6a, 41, etc.)
    Big question: how much do we want to work on this [.1].
    Jeffrey's summary and recommendations (no change) [.2].
    Awaiting proposals from Arthur and Phillippe.

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Feb/0025.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0102.html

12. Removing message.  Umit's posting on the value of part as an
    abstract concept of WSDL [.1].  Sanjiva asks for more rationale
    as to why his proposal did not fly [.2], and suggests that
    inheritance and overloading go together [.3].  Roberto's original 
    proposal at [.4].  Direction suggested by Dale [.5]

    Postponed until we have a little better idea of what our bindings
    will look like.  Gudge's responses [.6, .7] to Umit's examples [.8]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Feb/0011.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Feb/0020.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Feb/0014.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Nov/0035.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Dec/0040.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Mar/0006.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Mar/0013.html
[.8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Feb/0005.html

- Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2003 18:06:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:41 UTC