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

Agenda: MEP/Fault task force telcon Thursday 23 December 2004

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:23:38 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A505FFD80A@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

We won't have a full telcon this Thursday, but will instead use the time
to make progress on those issues that required mini-task forces.

I think the following people are critical resources for making progress:
  David Booth, Sanjiva, David Orchard, Roberto

AI's we're dependent on:

?         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
?         2004-11-09: DBooth and roberto to describe 
                      option 2 (remove definition of processor 
                      conformance, write up clear guidelines 
                      to developers) (LC5f)
?         2004-11-09: DaveO to work on text for option 
                      3 (redefining conformance in terms 
                      of building the component model) 
                      (LC5f)
?         2004-11-18: Mini-task force to propose one or two 
                      proposals for the group for LC5f.

------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Issue LC50: Message Exchange Patterns -- p2c and/or p2e [.1]
  - Proposed resolution [.2]
  - Definition of node: [.3, .4]
  - Status: We have agreed not to change the MEP itself, and have
    agreement about what the behavior is.  I think we need to turn
    [.2] into specific changes in the spec (if any), and iron out
    the wording of our node definition [.3].

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC50
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0088.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0070.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0072.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
2.  Issue LC5f: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance
                issues (f) [.1]
  - Roberto's proposal [.2]
  - No final resolution from FTF [.3], AIs to DBooth/Roberto and DaveO 
    to write up competing proposals
  - Status: We are generally in favor of restructuring or removing
    our processor conformance section.  We are still waiting for 
    written proposals.  I'm not sure we'll get these proposals
    by Thursday, but perhaps we can make some progress outlining 
    the proposals and moving these actions forward.  Or agree that 
    on approach is better.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5f
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Oct/0027.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0037.html
Received on Monday, 20 December 2004 18:24:04 GMT

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