See also: IRC log
Erik Ackerman Lexmark Mike Ballantyne Electronic Data Systems David Booth W3C Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems Glen Daniels Macromedia Dietmar Gaertner Software AG Martin Gudgin Microsoft Tom Jordahl Macromedia Jacek Kopecky Systinet Sandeep Kumar Cisco Systems Amelia Lewis TIBCO Steve Lind AT&T Lily Liu webMethods Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft) (x:35) Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon Arthur Ryman IBM Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft Jerry Thrasher Lexmark William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM Umit Yalcinalp Oracle Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
Steve Graham GGF Philippe Le Hégaret W3C
Scribe: Date: 22 May 2003
Scribe: Deferred till next week
<dbooth> ACTION: 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.) RETIRE?
Scribe: 2003-03-04: Editors to discuss markup for testable assertions
... in the spec and come back with a strategy.
<dbooth> ACTION: 2003-03-04: Editors to discuss markup for testable assertions in the spec and come back with a strategy. -- RETIRE
... ACTION: 2003-03-04: Jonathan to recruit a QA contact for the WG. RETIRE?
... ACTION: 2003-03-04: Jonathan to recruit a test contact for the WG. RETIRE?
... ACTION: 2003-03-13: Editors will find part 2 issues to dispatch easily next telcon. -- PENDING
... ACTION: 2003-03-13: Don will write a proposal for annotating schema with part information. -- PENDING
... ACTION: 2003-03-27: Philippe write up a proposal for embedding binary data types in schema -- PENDING
... ACTION: 2003-05-01: Marsh to summarize WS Desc interest for XML Schema subset to XML Schema WG -- PENDING
... ACTION: 2003-05-12: Editors to add (non-normative) pseudo-syntax description of each component. -- PENDING
... ACTION: 2003-05-12: Jonathan to work on auto generating pseudo-syntax from schema.
... ACTION: 2003-05-12: 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. -- PENDING
... ACTION: 2003-05-12: Jonathan to take the above points to the XMLP/CG worlds and see what to do next. -- PENDING
... ACTION: 2003-05-12: Editors to reflect decision to have one interface per <service>, add new attribute "interface" to <service>, and add "resource" attribute to <service>. -- PENDING
... ACTION: 2003-05-13: Umit to write up a variant of the endpoint description proposal using schema annotation syntax. -- PENDING
... ACTION: 2003-05-13: DaveO to send a motivating example for R131. -- PENDING
... ACTION: 2003-05-13: Jeffsch, Sanjiva, Glen, Umit, JJM to come up with a proposal to get rid with the message construct, and add programming hints. -- PENDING
... ACTION: 2003-05-14: Kevin to contact Sanjiva and try to merge proposals. -- PENDING
... ACTION: 2003-05-14: Editors to incorporate HTTP binding proposal into the spec. -- DONE
Scribe: July in Toronto. Group dinner?
... Support for a description group dinner on Thursday
... Support for combined dinner too. Arthur picks the place!
<jeffsch> +1 to order in
Arthur: Friday Aug 1 is a holiday in Canada
<sanjiva> +1 for finishing @ noon!
jjm: Need to talk with other editors - no estimate at this point
Scribe: no change since F2F
... Call next week to determine next steps for ending taskforce
Scribe: met yesterday, talked about assumptions
... continue to talk on Monday.
Scribe: Steve Grahm is still forming up task force
Scribe: validator project is being set up at eclipse.org early July.
... validation project for WSDL 1.1 will go up, then start WSDL 1.2 validation changes.
... OWL may address problem of writing assertions that can't be expressed in Schema.
<dbooth> Perhaps Bijan can help?
... Bijan = Bijan Parsia
<JacekK> ACTION Jacek to see how assertions in RDF (and OWL in particular) could go in
Scribe: Rename resource to targetResource?
Arthur: proposal is trying to tighten up service element
... In order to give some meaning to equivalence, targetResource allows you to use the same URI in two different services.
... Keeps the feature of WSDL 1.1, but make WSDL 1.2 specify a single interface, with a way to link multiple service elements
Scribe: (discussion about what this proposal does)
Arthur: all the endpoints in a service will access the same resource. multiple services may access the same resource with different interfaces, which is what the targetResource attribute would indicate
Sanjiva: The targetResource doesn't address equivalence, just indcates that you are talking about the same thing
Scribe: (more discussion about eqivalence and how resourceTarget is NOT used for that)
DBooth: targetResource would indicate relationships between services. Could there be more than 1?
Arthur: Yes, but this propsal doesn't address that.
<jeffsch> +1 to simplifying WSDL and just using RDF or similar
Arthur: an alternative to describing a single targetResource would be to use RDF
Sanjiva: worried that saying to use RDF just punts it to extensibility.
DBooth: worried that the relationship is implicit
Jacek: expected that services with the same targetResource would explicitly operate on the same object
Sanjiva: offers an example of a book buying service and a admin interface for that service would both have the same tanrgetResource
TomJ: Concept makes sense, we should name it targetResource
<sanjiva> +1 to what Tom said
Jacek: wants to make sure that text in spec talks about what happens if the resource is the same and the interface is the same, then they are equivalent.
DBooth: what about the case of two services, related by targetResource, implementing the same interface, but one modifies the data base and one is a test endpoint.
Umit: in this case don't we need to work out the equivalence?
Scribe: (more discussion, mostly related to equivalence)
Umit: We should have equiv if the same targetResource and same interface are used.
Jonathan: thinks target may be confusing
TomJ: thinks it helps reduce confusion
Sanjiva: points out targetNamespace is consistant with targetResource
DBooth: calls for objections to "targetResource" and we agree to use it unless someone comes up with something better
... open issue - do we need to specify what the relationships are if targetResource is the same?
Jonathan: is in favor of keeping it vague.
<sanjiva> +1 to what JM said
Scribe: Arthur's proposal to unify property URIs and QName URIs.
Arthur: talks about his proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0047.html)
... The following URI could be converted in to a QName:'http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/features/action/Action'
... Chop if off at the last slash and turn it in to <sa:Action xmlns:sa="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/features/action/">
Scribe: (Discusion about how this would work and how processors would deal with it)
JacekK: This approach may offer validation advantages