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

Summary, May 2003 WS Description FTF

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 03:06:57 -0700
Message-ID: <1113DDB24D4A2841951BFDF86665EE19063746C7@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Summary:

--------------------------------------------------------
Monday 12 May
--------------------------------------------------------

  Publication plan
    Plan to publish Part 1-3 in June.
    Intention is to get to last call on Part 1 by end of summer.
    ACTION: Editors to add (non-normative) pseudo-syntax description of 
            each component. 
    ACTION: Jonathan to work on auto generating pseudo-syntax from
schema.
    ACTION: Editors add more context to the specification - provide more

            descriptive wording to make it easier for someone to read
the 
            specification and to relate to Web services etc. before 
            jumping into component-by-component descriptions.

  WSDL 1.1 binding for SOAP 1.2
    State of the art:
      1. soapbuilders stuff: take that approach and just use that.
      2. out of band w.r.t. WSDL (ala Axis)
      3. can live without WSDL help using version mismatch fault
    ACTION: Jonathan to take the above points to the XMLP/CG worlds and 
            see what to do next.
    ACTION: Glen to talk to SOAPBuilders about how to move forward on 
            the SOAP 1.2 binding for WSDL 1.1.

  Proposal for restricting a service to a single interface (and)
  Multiple endpoints with the same interface
    Reached agreement on a model of a services based on the flexible
      definition of "resource". A resource offers one or more interfaces

      where an interface consists of a collection of operations.  Each 
      interface may be accessed by one or more endpoints, where an 
      endpoint represents a binding of that interace to a particular 
      protocol.  Each endpoint has a URI. A "service" is a collection 
      of endpoints bound to the same interface and therefore the same 
      resource.
    ACTION: Editors to reflect decision to have one interface per 
            <service>.
    RESOLUTION: add new attribute "interface" to <service>.
    ACTION: Editors to update the spec with these decisions.
    RESOLUTION: add "resource" attribute to <service>, taking a URI
                naming the resource upon which the service operates.
                This allows relating services with different
                interfaces that operate on the same underlying resource.
    ACTION: Editors to update draft to reflect resolution.




--------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday 13 May
--------------------------------------------------------

  Describing endpoint references
    Discussion of Arthur's proposal to add endpoint reference
      description, and solving R085 and possibly R131.  There
      is general agreement to add such capability to WSDL, but
      not agreement on the precise form of the annotations and
      where in the WSDL they should reside.
    RESOLUTION: Add new issue to the WSDL spec about whether
                to allow references to derivations (same 
                resolution would apply to Arthur's proposal).
    ACTION: Umit to write up a variant of the proposal using schema 
            annotation syntax.
    ACTION: DaveO to send a motivating example for R131.

  OGSI ServiceData
    Presentation of a general property handling mechanism that
      OGSI thinks has generic application within WSDL.  They want 
      to know whether WSDL will adopt something along these lines.
      There was substantial interest (6 to 1, several abstaining)
      in adding this to WSDL.
    RESOLUTION: Create a TF to investigate this subject: Steve 
                is the chair, william is interested, Umit if her 
                management agrees.  TF will report back for 
                decision at July TF.

  Removing message/part
    Presentation and discussion of an idea to cleanly separate
      interop at the message format level from interop at the
      programming model level.  Sketch of a proposal to remove 
      message and part, allowing inlining of XML Schema fragments
      within an operation, but to also build better hints to 
      indicate the desired programming model.  This is what 
      parts are used for, but they do a poor job of it today.
      Substantial agreement that this approach is promising.
    ACTION: Jeffsch, Sanjiva, Glen, Umit, JJM to come up with 
            a proposal to get rid with the message construct, 
            and add programming hints.

--------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday 14 May
--------------------------------------------------------

    Properties and Features (and)
    Issue 2 (SOAPAction)
    Glen presented additional explanatory text about properties
      and features, some of this text needs to go into the
      specification.  Examined Philippe's pros and cons of
      using property syntax for SOAPAction and webMethod.  
      Substantial majority in favor of property syntax.  Arthur
      sketched out a proposal for unifying the property URI
      and the QName URI by adding a new declaration marking
      a namespace as a property namespace.  Interest in
      pursuing this a little farther before a final syntax
      choice is made.
    RESOLUTION: [?added by JM] Incorporate f&p guidelines into
                the specification.
    ACTION: Arthur to write up the alternative/WebDAV syntax 
            for features.

    Binding simplification
      Sanjiva presented a proposal to 1) Drop @interface from 
        binding, since now in service. 2) Allow inlining 
        interface-wide binding within a port and making 
        binding optional. 3) Define default binding (SOAP 
        doc/lit).  4) Dealing with operation specific 
        SOAPActions.  There was general interest in pursuing
        this proposal.
      ACTION: Sanjiva to send presentation by email to start 
        discussion.

    BindingDetails
      Kevin re-introduced the proposal to make bindings more
        reusable.  Adopting both BindingDetails and Sanjiva's
        proposals appears unacceptably complicated.  Some
        brainstorming about how to merge and simplify the
        proposals.
      ACTION: Kevin to contact Sanjiva and try to merge proposals.

    HTTP Binding
      Philippe presented some syntax to go along with the 
        proposal he had made earlier (to general acclaim).
        Some outstanding issues remain, and some details are
        dependent upon changes to other parts of the spec.
      RESOLUTION: Adopt the proposal into the spec.

    (Begin Joint Session)
    
    Future meetings
      IBM/Toronto            Arch: July 28-30, Desc: July 30-1 August
      SAP/Palo Alto          Desc: Sept 22-24, Arch: Sept 24-26
      Fujitsu/San Francisco  Desc: Nov 3-5,    Arch: Nov 5-7
      No participants objected to this plan.
    
    (WSDesc) Single interface per service implications on
    (WSArch) "What is a web service?"
      Presented and discussed the WSDL definition of Service 
      (<service>) adopted on Monday.
      
    OWL Presentation and Demo on OWL by Bijan Parsia.
      Desire to have a SW expert join the WSDL WG and develop
      the WSDL expertise necessary to edit the mapping deliverable.
    
    (End Joint Session)
    
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 06:07:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:24 GMT