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

[draft] Agenda: 22-24 Sept 2003 WS Description WG FTF

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:58:21 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA20118978F@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Logistics [1], dial-in numbers [2] (members only).

  [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/3/07/f2fSeptLogistics.html
  [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/3/07/f2fSeptLogistics.html#Bridge

--------------------------------------------------------
Monday 22 September
--------------------------------------------------------
09:00 Introductions and logistics
    - Assignment of scribes
      @@@
    - Agenda fine-tuning

09:15 Removing message.  New Draft [3], schema [4]
    - Countdown to close the following issues [5].
      * Issue 27: Remove 'style' attribute [6] 
      * Issue 39: Binding extensions depend on structure of 
                  portType [7]
      * Issue 40: Binding extensions for SOAP interact in a 
                  complex way [8]
      * Issue 45: fault/@use should be optional [9]
      * Issue 48: soap:body/@use should be optional [10] 
      * Issue 63: soap binding violates separation of abstract
                  and concrete [11]

  [3] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xml
  [4] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xsd
  [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0004.html
  [6] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x27
  [7] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x39
  [8] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x40
  [9] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x45
 [10] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x48
 [11] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x63

9:30 R085 Describing endpoint references.  [12]
   - 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. Proposal 
     from Umit [13], response from Arthur [14].
   - Related issue (?) dynamic discovery of a service [15].
   - Arthur to work with Umit to unify approaches.

 [12]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Apr/att-0088/R085-20
03-04-22.html
 [13]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jun/att-0024/umit_pr
oposal.html__charset_ISO-8859-1
 [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jun/0142.html
 [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0004.html

10:30 Break
10:50 Endpoint references (cont.)

12:00 Lunch
13:00 Attributes
  - TF revised proposal [16]

[16] TBD 

15:00 Break
15:20 Attributes (cont.)

17:30 Adjourn

-------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday 23 September
-------------------------------------------------------
09:00 Patterns.  New draft [20]
    - Choose specific patterns for the standard [21]:
      1. TF recommendation: drop request-response and multicast-
         solicit-response patterns, as subsumed by others [22].
      2. Sanjiva's proposal: drop any pattern not used in a
         normative binding in our spec.
      3. Tom's proposal: drop the "multi" patterns.
      4. Amy's proposal: at least the patterns in WSDL 1.1.

 [20]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12-patterns.
xml
 [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0010.html
 [22]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/meps-vs-iops/rec
ommendations_clean.htm

10:30 Break
10:50 Patterns (cont.)

11:15 WSDL Validator demo (Arthur)

12:00 Lunch
13:00 Binding enhancements.  New draft [23, 24]
  - Unresolved proposal: Drop <soap:binding>: drop @protocol, change 
              <soap:address>: add @protocol.

  - Issue #80: Inappropriate name for binding component [25].
  - Issue #81: Match between binding/@interface and 
               service/@interface should account for interface 
               inheritance. [26]
  - Issue #82: Relax binding syntax constraints in favor of 
               semantic constraints [27]
  - Issue #83: Specify interaction between binding extensions [28]
  - Issue #84: Are SOAP header faults needed? [29]
  - Issue #85: HTTP (non-SOAP) binding depends on message/part [30]
               Philippe to make proposal.
  - Issue #86: Should we define a new binding element for 
               default rule for wsoap:operation/@soapActionURI.
               Proposal = interfaceTNS#operation-name. [31]

[23]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xml#Bindi
ng
[24]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xml#Endpo
int [25] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x80
[26] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x81
[27] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x82
[28] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x83
[29] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x84
[30] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x85
[31] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x86

15:00 Break
15:20 Binding Enhancements (cont.)

17:30 Adjourn

-------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday 23 September
-------------------------------------------------------
09:00 TBD

10:30 Break
10:50 TBD

12:00 Adjourn [32]

[32] http://www.cdsusa.com/
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 19:58:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:26 GMT