Web Services Description
9 Dec 2004

<bijan> It's just about 1am where I am :)

<dbooth> Scribe: dmoberg

Approval of Minutes

Minutes approved with corrections.

Bijan set regrets is noted as correction.

Alan also in attendance noted as correction.

Action item update approved

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.
PENDING   2004-10-07: Primer editors to use the new 
                      terms "Web service" and "consumer|client".
PENDING   2004-10-14: Arthur to prototype a javascript 
                      implementation and decide on the two doc's 
                      vs javascript method later.
PENDING   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. 
PENDING   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.
PENDING   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.
PENDING   2004-11-11: Hugo to update the makefile to 
                      generate the spec with Z
PENDING   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.
PENDING   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

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html

Administrivia

Schedule updates

Dec 30 cancelled.

Good standing update sent to list.

Tom asks for motivation

Hugo relayed request to reconsider good standing procedures

Also a carrot or threat for promoting attendance

Suggestion to comment in email on the details of this decree

Roberto inquires about good standing as per individual but voting by company

Algorithm for good standing discussion

Vacations need to be covered by organization somehow

Discretion is left to chair and Hugo for mitigating circumstances

<sanjiva> +1 for what Hugo just said: if u haven't participated you shouldn't be able to affect decisions .. esp. at this late stage

<sanjiva> Jonathan: +1 for cracking the whip on good standing.

Chair seeks comments on proposed changes

<sanjiva> That's payback for those of us that do bother to show up ..

<prasad> From goodstanding doc "Although all participants representing an organization SHOULD attend all meetings, attendance by one representative of an organization satisfies the meeting attendance requirement for all representatives of the organization."

Proposes next week for adopting (or rejecting) such policies

1st Jan telcon media type issue?

<Marsh> ACTION: schedule MTD issues first telcon in Jan

LC5f

DBooth+Roberto plus DaveO to write up proposals, pending

DBooth to own conformance proposal LC5f write-ups

Tom asks fault/fail language the issue, or something more?

Glen proposed language on 29b.

LC 18, Asir suggested 2 sentences.

<text>

In SOAP, additional semantics such as security, reliability, etc. may be

engaged via SOAP headers. The combined rules and syntax for such

extensions are known as SOAP Modules (see [SOAP 1.2 Part 1: Messaging

Framework]).

</text>

LC 18 delayed until land line connect occurs from GlenD

LC 54 Dave O sent to Asir Roberto waiting reactions

LC 50 MEP issue said to be approaching resolution. A message is needed reporting resolution. DBooth says he will find exisitng method or create one

<scribe> ACTION: DBooth will find message for LC 50

<dbooth> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0088.html

<scribe> ACTION: definition of Node still needed Booth vs. Sanjiva

Kevin says clarification needed for spec on binding's role in modifying.

<dbooth> Proposed def of node (#1): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0070.html

<scribe> ACTION: Kevin will write up issue that remains

<dbooth> proposed def of node (#2): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0072.html

<scribe> ACTION: next week node definition selection!!

Stack pops back to LC 18

LC18

That is, the SOAP module specification declares which WSDL features this

module implements. To automate/enforce this relationship, LC18 calls for

some text in Part 3 stating that SOAP module specifications MUST/SHOULD/MAY

specify WSDL features that a module implements.

Also, if the property "WSDL

Feature URI" is actually the same as the property "SOAP Feature URI", in the

SOAP Binding Context, we should state that.

Glen responds that any SOAP feature can also be a WSDL feature

Asir says that would be useful. Discussion of where to place text

<asir> Thank you Kevin!

<anish> he means MTOM

Kevin asks for clarity using example of mtom abstract feature.

Glen says examples would be better placed in primer, especially about where wsdl:feature goes in markkup

Glen notes a soap module is actually not an abstract feature.

Kevin agrees to add examples about how to use the various distinguished types of wsdl:feature wsdl:property soap:feature .and what the various placement of these does

<dbooth> GlenD, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/0144.html

<scribe> ACTION: glen to send example on feature stuff for primer

Glen amends statement a SOAP abstract feature is also an abstract WSDL feature

<Marsh> RESOLUTION Close LC18, LC29b:

<Marsh> ... adding text stating that a SOAP abstract feature is also (by definition) an abstract WSDL feature)

<Marsh> ACTION: Glen and Asir to help craft the specfic text for the editors.

PROPOSED:

Add a paragraph between the two existing paragraphs, as follows:

<p> WSDL patterns specify propagation of faults, not their generation.

Nodes which generate a fault MUST attempt to propagate the faults in

accordance with the governing ruleset, but it is understood that any

delivery of a network message is best effort, not guaranteed. The

rulesets establish the direction of the fault message and the fault

recipient, they do not provide reliability or other delivery guarantees.

When a fault is generated, the generating node MUST attempt to

propagate the fault, and MUST do so in the direction and to to the

recipient specified by the ruleset.</p>

Add a final paragraph to the section, as follows:

<p> Bindings, features, or extension specifications may override the

semantics of a fault propagation ruleset, but this practice is strongly

discouraged.</p>

Amy!

LC76c -- discussion of Amy proposed text

Chair asked about best effort in extreme corner cases like DOS attack participation

Chair asks whether Amy proposal is OK

Arthur asks for proposal content (see above)

<TomJ> +1 - I believe that Amy's proposal is correct.

Hugo discusses extreme case ramifications. But proposes to adopt Amy language

No objections to Amy resolution noted

<Marsh> RESOLUTION close LC76c with amy's proposal in Nov 0054.

<GlenD> Alas, I have another call now (oy it never ends) - so I'm going to drop off

LC 74e 75q 85b 85c

Order of discussion considered.

Roberto, wait for Addison Phillips (?) to finish info

Chair proposes to move this discussion to f2f

<scribe> ACTION: hugo or JMarsh to write up schema group remarks

serialization detail or aspect of component model?

Tom asks pointedly whether this issue is of any importance to users of spec

1.1 and 1.0 xml support- how to do: Hugo says some consensus formed that he will report

Tom asks whether we are pursuing this complicated issue

JMarsh says yes

Next week: Dec 16, will take on single interface and other stuff

Adjourns