WS Description Teleconference
23 Oct 2003

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Contents

• Topics
• Summary of Action Items

<Marsh> Minutes accepted

Review of Action items

PENDING 2003-07-31: Philippe to make a proposal for fixing the HTTP binding.

PENDING 2003-09-11: Philippe to write a response to Mark Baker proposing a property solution to HTTP verbs and ask whether this satisfies his request.

PENDING 2003-09-18: Marsh to review the QA operational guidelines.

FTF 2003-09-23: Roberto, Glen: provide a counterproposal to the current proposal for endpoint references.

RETIRED 2003-10-02: Editors to provide drafts for pub review a couple of days before the Oct 16th telcon.

RETIRED 2003-10-09: Jacek to discuss Bijan's action off-line with Bijan.

PENDING 2003-10-09: JMarsh to consider adding JeffSch's suggestion to revisit naming questions later, after subtantive work is done, to future agenda.

DONE [.2] 2003-10-09: Glen to report on whether Sonic can hold January f2f.

PENDING 2003-10-09: Jacek, Bijan to look into message extensibility issues (Appendix E, Jacek's review) wrt RDF data, and discuss with Jacek.

PENDING 2003-10-09: Sanjiva: send email explaining rational for pattern inference.

PENDING 2003-10-16: Amy to provide a use-case for cyclical includes.

DONE [.4] 2003-10-16: Part2 editors to update pattern spec accordingly (add three new patterns).

DONE [.4] 2003-10-16: Part2 editors to clarify when faults terminate patterns (or not).

DONE [.3] 2003-10-16: dbooth to check on pub moratorium.

<dbooth> zakim instructions: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html

<Philippe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/att-0124/031016-
... ws-desc-irc.htm

<dbooth> ACTION: Glen to send out expanded explanation of Features and Properties

Scribe: upcoming f2fs
... january f2f details to be published soon

<Philippe> January 28-30 are the targeted dates hopefully

Scribe: march wsdl meeting in Cannes durening tech plenary

jmarsh: did not meet the publication deadlines last week
... will we have a draft to review for nov f2f

dbooth: plan was to publish part1, maybe part2, not part3

jmarsh: some drafts (part1 & 2) should then appear a few days before the f2f

umit: it is important to fix rpc rules prior the publication

jmarsh: umit to be editor for media-type schema annotation spec

philipe: some clarifications needed
... regarding that topic

jmarsh: schema annotation simple and more general

umit: that was not what i remember from the f2f

philipe: conclusion was to follow jonathan's proposal

<Philippe> f2f minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Sep/0218.html
... "Looking for a volunteer to write up a note describing new Schema attribute approach."

jmarsh: proposal was a general purpose schema annotation (most likely an attribute) that would describe the media type
... we would then ask schema and xmlp wg about how to continue with that work

kevin: what is the relationship with attachment ?

umit: next item... relationship with MTOM

jmarsh: next item: xmlp wg ask wsdl wg to support MTOM in WSDL

Scribe: umit and kevin proponent of doing this within WSDL

philipe: wait until we work on the bindings

jmarsh: let's add a requirement
... for describing MTOM within WSDL

philipe: this is a binding issue, we do not need anything more than the schema annotation at the type level

jmarsh: add a SHOULD requirement ?
... action to add a SHOULD requirement to support MTOM

Scribe: discussion about "should" versus "must if mtom is on time"

<Marsh> ACTION: Communicate this requiremnt to JeffSch

<Marsh> ACTION: JM to communicate this decision to XMLP

jmarsh: anybody interested to review privacy in more details ?

philipe: I

jmarsh: only a few sections apply to web services, should not be too hard

Scribe: task force status
... new issues
... multiple inline schemas

jmarsh: WS-I added the requirement not to preclude multiple inline schemas
... conclusion was that multiple inline schemas was ok
... alternate proposal from umit: do we really need inline schemas
... two proposals => resolve the issue at f2f

<Tomj> I like the restrictions that the BP has made to WSDL 1.1 (Schema import for Schema, wsdl import for WSDL). We should make sure 2.0 says something similar if it doesn't already.
... I think we should make sure that 2.0 is clear that multiple inline schema fragments are allowed and should be supported by processors.

umit: I like the idea to let schemas issues to schema wg/specs

Scribe: next item: faults

roberto: usecase was to add an optional name attribute to the fault element
... no use case

dbooth: the lack of a proposed use case gives evidence that it isn't needed

tjordhal: there was no clear decision

Scribe: discussions about the relationship between this issue and sanjiva's proposal

umit: we have a use case for the name attribute

jmarsh: continue the work on faults

<Marsh> phone freaking out

tjordhal: could be a good one hour topic for f2f

jmarsh: I will put this in f2f agenda

Scribe: new topic: pattern

jmarsh: and fault-replaces-message rule

<dbooth> ACTION: Part2_Editors to clarify wording in fault-replaces-message rule that a fault is GENERATED but not necessarily SENT.

Scribe: new topic: RPC-style rules

jmarsh: let's go with the missing rules

Scribe: first two rules ok
... some discussions about the third rule
... third rule with "signature" removed accepted

<Marsh> Third rule: Each elemen tdesignates a single parameter irrespective of its cardinality

Scribe: roberto does not see the need for rule 4
... jacek : only needed for tool builders

tjordhal: we can talk of function signatures (rpc rules)

dbooth: first two rules are testable and should be must
... last two are just hints

jmarsh: first three rules are ok to be put in the spec

dbooth: the first two yes, the third one should not be added
... it is in the second rules set

<dbooth> second rules set == hints

umit: we should not disallow people to use soap 1.2 rpc rules

jacek: soap 1.2 rpc rules is based on soap 1.2 data model that translates xml thanks to soap encoding
... we will run into interesting pbs. Let's say that we do not support soap1.2 rpc rules in our set of rules

roberto: create another style for soap 1.2 rpc rules

umit: first, the current rules for output message is broken
... current rules does not allow to have a void type => current rules are broken
... need an external mechanism to specify what will be the returned value
... using soap rpc rules allows to solve these issues

<JacekK> we may yet devise a way to describe SOAP Data Model data in WSDL 2
... I expect this way wouldn't use XML Schema
... We can then create a second set of RPC rules with a different schema language
... and that would support SOAP 1.2 RPC
... We should in any case provide a set of RPC rules that will use XML Schema

roberto: we shouldn't use the soap1.2 rpc rules to solve these issues

umit: let's use soap rpc conventions to designate the return value

jacek: it will not be soap rpc rules but soap like ... because soap rpc rules use soap encoding
... and soap data model

umit: two issues: soap rpc rules are not supported and...

<Roberto> SOAP 1.2 data model not supported => SOAP 1.2 RPC not supported

umit: and rules are broken as well

<JacekK> ACTION: JacekK to reformulate the return value RPC rule not to be broken wrt null values

Summary of Action Items