W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > December 2004

[corrected] Minutes, 16 Dec 2004 WS Description WG telcon

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:34:30 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A505FAB2B6@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

[Oops, forgot the attendance :-}]
Minutes, 16 Dec 2004 WS Description WG telcon

Present:
 David Booth            W3C
 Glen Daniels           Sonic Software
 Paul Downey            British Telecommunications
 Youenn Fablet          Canon
 Hugo Haas              W3C
 Tom Jordahl            Macromedia
 Anish Karmarkar        Oracle
 Jacek Kopecky          DERI
 Amelia Lewis           TIBCO
 Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
 Jonathan Marsh         Chair (Microsoft)
 Jeff Mischkinsky       Oracle
 Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce
 Jean-Jacques Moreau    Canon
 Arthur Ryman           IBM
 Asir Vedamuthu         webMethods
 Sanjiva Weerawarana    IBM
 Umit Yalcinalp         SAP

IRC:
 Bijan Parsia           University of Maryland MIND Lab

Regrets:
 Allen Brookes          Rogue Wave Software
 Roberto Chinnici       Sun Microsystems
 David Orchard          BEA Systems
 Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda

1.  Welcome new member: Michael Liddy of Education.au Ltd.
    Assign scribe.  Lucky minute taker for this week is one of:
      Amy Lewis, William Vambenepe, Erik Ackerman, 
      Jean-Jacques Moreau, Igor Sedukhin, Jeff Mischkinsky, 
      David Orchard, Asir Vedamuthu, Bijan Parsia,
      Sanjiva, Tom Jordahl, Hugo Haas

Scribe: Tom

--------------------------------------------------------------------
2.  Approval of minutes:
  - Dec 9 [.1]

[.1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/att-0019/2004-12
-02-minutes.html

Approved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
3.  Review of Action items [.1].  Editorial actions [.2].

PENDING   2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going.
PENDING   2004-09-02: Bijan to create stylesheet to generate a
                      table of components and properties.
PENDING   2004-09-16: Editors to move App C to RDF Mapping spec, 
                      except the frag-id which will move 
                      within media-type reg appendix.
PENDING   2004-09-16: Editors to fix paragraph 6-9 of section 
                      2.1.1 moved into 2.1.2
                      which talks about the syntax.
PENDING   2004-09-30: Arthur to add Z notation to Part 1.

Discussion with Arthur about Z notation and javascript in a single
document
[pauld: let them eat Z! one version to rule them all..]
Much discussion about how to present the Z notation: inline with
Javascript to hide, 2 documents, etc.
Expectation is to default to Z notation hidden. This would be the
non-normative version.
Normative version would have everything w/ no hiding functionality.

DONE      2004-10-07: Primer editors to use the new 
                      terms "Web service" and "consumer|client".
DONE      2004-10-14: Arthur to prototype a javascript 
                      implementation and decide on the two doc's 
                      vs javascript method later.
PENIDNG   2004-10-14: Editors to add a statement like: 
                      The Style property may constrain both 
                      input and output, however a particular 
                      style may constrain in only one 
                      direction. In Section 2.4.1.1 of Part 1.
                      (subsumed by LC21 resolution?)
PENDING   2004-10-21: Glen to respond to Tim Ewald re: LC9. 
DONE      2004-10-28: Glen to write up the relation between 
                      features and modules for LC18.
PENDING   2004-11-09: DBooth and roberto to describe 
                      option 2 (remove definition of processor 
                      conformance, write up clear guidelines 
                      to developers) (LC5f)
PENDING   2004-11-09: DaveO to work on text for option 
                      3 (redefining conformance in terms 
                      of building the component model) 
                      (LC5f)
PENDING   2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith 
                      proposal using an extension namespace. 
                      (LC54)
DONE      2004-11-10: Part 3 Editors to roll in Asir's changes.
PENDING   2004-11-10: Sanjiva to write the rationale for 
                      rejecting LC75a
PENDING   2004-11-10: Glen will post an e-mail describing 
                      the compromise proposal on formal objections.
DONE      2004-11-10: DBooth will produce text for the spec 
                      re: slide 12 of his presentation.
PENDING   2004-11-10: Editor remove ambiguity if it exists
PENDING   2004-11-10: Sanjiva will write up this proposal 
                      and email it to the list as a response 
                      to the objection.
DONE      2004-11-11: Hugo to update the makefile to 
                      generate the spec with Z
DROPPED   2004-11-11: Arthur to write up a sample of what 
                      a rewritten spec using an infoset-based 
                      component model would look like
PENDING   2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the 
                      test suite for the purpose of 
                      interoperability testing.
DONE      2004-11-11: Hugo to ask the XMLP wg to clarify the 
                      issue around the response in the 
                      SOAP/HTTP binding (LC50)
PENDING   2004-11-11: Editors of part 2 and 3 to add text 
                      about WSDLMEP and SOAP mep mapping that 
                      points to section 2.3 of part 3 (LC48b) 
PENDING   2004-11-11: Umit to check on operation@style (LC61a)
PENDING   2004-11-18: DBooth to propose text to clarify that 
                      a service must implement everything in 
                      its description.
PENDING   2004-11-18: Mini-task force to propose one or two 
                      proposals for the group for LC5f.
PENDING   2004-12-02: DBooth to draft note clarifying that 
                      (a) optional extension can change the 
                      semantics; and (b) that if semantics are 
                      going to change at runtime, it should be 
                      indicated in the WSDL 
DONE [.6] 2004-12-03: DBooth will find message for LC 50 
DONE [.4, .5] 2004-12-03: Definition of Node still needed 
                      Booth vs. Sanjiva
PENDING   2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specfic text 
                      for the editors.
PENDING   2004-12-03: Glen to send example on feature stuff for primer
PENDING   2004-12-03: Hugo or JMarsh to write up schema group remarks
DONE      2004-12-03: Kevin will write up issue that remains
DONE      2004-12-03: next week node definition selection!!
DONE [.3] 2004-12-03: schedule MTD issues first telcon in Jan

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Dec/0016.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0070.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0072.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0088.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
4.  Administrivia
  a. Jan 19-21 Melbourne, Australia hosted by BEA [.1]

Amy: asks if there will be telcon for Australia FTF
[Marsh: ACTION: Follow up on telcon for Australia FTF.]

  b. Mar 3,4? Boston
  c. Holiday telcon schedule Dec 23rd TF call, Dec 30th cancelled.
  d. Jan 6th telcon to be devoted to Media Type Description issues. [.2]

Jan 6th telcon to be devoted to Media Type Description issues

  e. Good Standing proposal [.3]

Good Standing proposal - JMarsh may have math wrong, but it was an
example of what *would* happen
Asir:    Will the good standing status be visible to members?
JMarsh:  Would an Excel spreadsheet be OK?
ACTION:  Marsh to publish spreadsheet with Good Standing calculations.

  f. Primer Publication [.4]

DBooth:  the primer seems ready to publish as a draft
Concern raised that the Last Call of the spec doesn't match the Primer,
which refers to things in the editors draft.  In particular the Schema
in the editors draft is more up to date.
Hugo:    I believe we should point to the editors draft of the spec.
Discussion on how to indicate to readers which documents to use...
[kliu:   ACTION: primer editors to add explanatory text and refer to the
latest editor's copy of the spec]
Arthur:  Concerned about the validation of the primer, not willing to
raise an objection to prevent publishing
Arthur:  The validation of the WSDL in the primer.
[kliu:   ACTION: primer editors to check examples and make sure they are
consistent with the latest wsdl2.0 schema]
Asir: points out a bad link in the primer. DBooth will address
Jmarsh: Any objects to publishing the first draft of the primer?
No objections!
[sanjiva: Thanks to Kevin and David for the hard work on the primer!]
[asir: dbooth, in the informative reference section .. you have a
reference to the primer itself]
[asir: Thanks to David and Kevin, Good Work!] 

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Nov/0014.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Dec/0016.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Dec/0009.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0018.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
5.  New (non-LC) Issues.  Issues list [.1].
  - Media Type tbd

[.1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.h
tml

------------------------------------------------------------------
6.  Last Call Issues [.1].  Comments list [.2]
  - TBD

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/

JMarsh: a few new issues added

------------------------------------------------------------------
7.  Issue LC21: Multipart Style and {direction}=out [.1]
  - Hugo requests additional guidance [.2]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC21
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0013.html

Hugo sent Email about another problem with our resolution
Hugo:    About the use of out-first patterns with the HTTP binding.  
         At the time we said this was possible, but it would need 
         out-of-band info about where to send it.  With current 
         text, out-first is not very useful. Do we even want to 
         talk about it?
Asir:    We don't have to reopen LC21, we could just take care of 
         implmentation details
Hugo:    Options:
         1. Keep decision we made, allow out-first MEPs. Means 
            Request URI is fixed and in WSDL
         2. Isn't worth it to have out-first, reverse decision and 
            not allow it
         3. We decide we really want it and work out details on how 
            to do it.
Hugo:    Going to be tough to get interop.
[dbooth: TomJ: Not worth having the out-first HTTP. ]
Tomj:    in favor of removing out-first HTTP - save interop grief.
Asir:    supports removing it
Sanjiva: opposed to out-first binding unless it's usable - remove it.
[alewis: agree that out-first is inappropriate for http]
[asir:   I tracked down this particular decision to item 10 in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Oct/0066.html]
TomJ:    Don't want to *prevent* people from designing their own 
         way of getting out-first ops to work.
Hugo:    Users can define their own binding.
Jacek:   We talk about this before - it's allowed and anything to 
         make it work is out of scope
Sanjiva: The spec should just talk about the MEPs that work and not 
         preclude others.
Glen:    Extensibility is the way to go here, if someone puts an 
         out-first operation in their WSDL, they better put some sort 
         of indication in the WSDL as to how to get it to work
JMarsh:  Removing it completely (option 1): tools would reject the 
         WSDL unless a (probably mandatory) extension told them 
         how things work
JMarsh:  Reviews the possibilities: remove out-first from HTTP 
         binding, or leave it in and say you must fill in the 
         blanks as to how it works
more discussion on how we could get out-first to work
[asir:   Oh well, we have spent enough time on this !!]
DBooth:  Proposes to change out spec to say that the HTTP binding 
         supports the in-first MEPs. Other MEPs may be used, but 
         would require an extension to be used
[asir:   +1 to Jonathan's rephrase]
Support for Dave's proposal
[GlenD:  Other MEPs may be used, but the semantics of their usage must 
         be defined in some way, such as with an extension or Feature.]
Talking about wording.
[sanjiva: "if some other meps (such as outbound meps) are in use in 
         the interface then some extension may be required to 
         indicate how those work with this binding"]
ACTION:  Part 3 Editors to update the HTTP binding with one of the above
         versions of text

Call next week will be a Task Force. See you next year!

[bijan: Ta]

Meeting Adjourned
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 22:34:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT