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

Re: Agenda for 13 March 2003 WS Description WG

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:45:21 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030313091804.02edfe58@localhost>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>

Jonathan,

One more item of administrivia to add to the agenda: Tech Plenary feedback 
wanted.

The W3C team would like feedback on the Tech Plenary, and in particular, 
would like to know whether members would find it helpful to hold Tech 
Plenaries more often.  Potential benefits: (1) Better cross-WG 
communication; (2) possibly reduced travel expenses for people in multiple 
WGs, since the WGs need to hold F2F meetings anyway, and a Tech Plenary 
allows them to be consolidated.

Feedback form: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/100/TP2003/
Tech Plenary agenda: http://www.w3.org/2003/03/TechPlenAgenda.html


At 03:06 PM 3/12/2003 -0800, Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>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
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Agenda
>
>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
>                       assist.
>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
>"utility"
>                       metric is that a binding (not necessarily from
>this
>                       group) which makes use of that MEP be
>intereroperable
>                       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
>                       MEPs
>?         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]
>
>[.1]
>http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html
>[.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

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2003 09:45:45 GMT

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