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

[draft] Agenda: 4-5 March 2004 WS Description WG FTF

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:35:55 -0800
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA202B952BB@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

[First draft.  Note that ***** indicates items that have dependencies 0
please check for action items assigned to you!]

Logistics [1].

 [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/allgroupoverview.html

--------------------------------------------------------
Thursday 4 March
--------------------------------------------------------
08:30 Introductions and logistics
    - Assignment of scribes
        TBD
    - Agenda bashing

08:40 WSDL Component Designators:
      Trolling through old minutes does not reveal clearly whether 
      WSDL Component Designators should be added back into the draft 
      as an Appendix.  My memory says "yes, we decided that" but the 
      minutes are unclear and the edtodo does not mention this.  If 
      you clearly remember something different, this is your chance 
      to scream.

08:45 Issue 79: How much validation? [2]
      [*****ACTION: David Booth to suggest improvements to the spec 
                    clarifying "WSDL processor". *****]
      Jacek posted a relevant proposal [3].

  [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x79
  [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0121.html

09:30 Issue 121: Broken resolution of NCNAME or QNAME [4]

  [4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x121

09:45 Issue 92: Layering message patterns [5]

  [5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x92
 
10:15 Issue 133: Why aren't two input/output elements allowed to share 
      the same @element value? [6]

  [6] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x133

10:30 Break

10:50 Issue 112: Headers at the abstract level [7]
    - Headers as first-class citizens [8]
    - Glen's OOB feature proposal [9]

  [7] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x112
  [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0004.html
  [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0053.html

12:00 Lunch

13:30 Issue 109: WSDL versioning [10]
    - Use cases (DavidO) [11]
    - Requirements (PaulD) [12]
    - Scenarios
      [***** ACTION: DaveO to write up a proposal for augmenting 
                     schema information to enable versioned data. *****]
    - Note: Schema folks might be want to join for this topic.

 [10] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x109
 [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0016.html
 [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0082.html

14:30 Issue 140: Version attribute [13]
    - Tom's initial proposal [14] and follow-on proposal [15]
      [*****Need clear enumeration of options*****]

 [13] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x136
 [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0049.html
 [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0069.html

15:30 Break
15:50 Issue 123: Requiring all operations to be bound [16]

 [16] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x123

16:00 Issue 117: Marking operations as 'safe' [17]
      [***** Awaiting proposal from Philippe *****]

 [17] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x117

16:30 Joint Session with TAG (Web arch [18])
    - Saying more about QName mapping (?) [19]
    - Error recovery vs. not having to "validate" parts of the doc not
      used or examined by a processor. [20]
    - Comparison of XML namespaces with Schema and WSDL namespaces. [20]
    - Cracking a component designator URI. [20]
    - Operation safety? (Issue 117) [21]

 [18] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/
 [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0164.html
 [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0180.html
 [21] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x117

18:00 Adjourn


-------------------------------------------------------
Friday 5 March
-------------------------------------------------------
08:30 Issue 124: Semantics of mandatory properties and features [30]

 [30] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x124

08:45 Issue 149: Duplicate features with conflicting @required [31]

 [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0208.html 

09:00 Issue 134: Proposal for adding Compositors [32]

 [32] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x112

10:30 Break
10:50 Issue 120: Operation Name feature proposal [33, 34, 35]
    - Mark Baker had some comments [36, 37].
    - Request for being able to detect where the OperationName is
      located (Mark Baker) [38]
    - First message only, or in responses? (Jacek) [39]

 [33] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x120
 [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0082.html
 [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0152.html 
 [36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0173.html
 [37] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0175.html
 [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0105.html
 [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0165.html

12:00 Lunch
13:30 Import/include issues
    - 127: Behavior if import/include fails [40]
    - 128: Two imports for the same namespace illegal? [41] 
    - 129: Allow multiple values for import/include locations [42]

 [40] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x127 
 [41] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x128
 [42] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x129

14:00 Naming issues
    - 114: Name of wsoap:fault/@name [43]
    - 126: Confusion between binding and element names [44]
    - Name attribute consistency
      [***** ACTION: Sanjiva to consistify the @name attributes. *****]
      Any issues here?

 [43] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x114 
 [44] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x126

14:30 Issue 131: Treatment of optional extensions [45]

 [45] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x139

14:35 Issue 139: Non-deterministic schema [46]

 [46] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x139

14:50 Issue 148: Double check URI comparison algorithm and relative 
               URI use [47]
      [***** Needs proposal, possibly based on TAG joint session ****]

 [47] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0180.html

15:00 Break
15:20 Issue 115: Improving on-the-wire conformance [48]
      STATUS: Resolution proposed at 19 Feb telcon.
      [***** Review actual text that gets added to the spec before 
             closing. *****]

 [48] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x115

15:30 Issue 135: WSDL Specification readability [49]
      [***** STATUS: David Orchard to produces a specific example of 
             the kind of change he envisions. *****]

 [49] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x135

15:45 Issue 97: Schema language for SOAP encoding [50]
    - Proposal from Jacek [51]

 [50] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x97
 [51]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/att-0098/SOAPDat
aModelSchema.html__charset_ISO-8859-2

16:15 Issue 106: Using RDF in WSDL [52, 53].
      [***** STATUS: Dependent upon RDF mapping first draft, need to 
             figure out how to get unblocked from going to Last 
             Call. *****]

 [52] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x106
 [53] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0076.html

16:30 Issue 111: Simplified syntax?  [54]

 [54] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x111

17:45 Next steps towards Last Call
    - How to close any unresolved issues.
    - When will we see the first internal Last Call spec?
    - Process for reviewing Parts 1 and 2.
    - Ramping up on Part 3.

18:00 Adjourn


------------------------------------------------------------------
We may need to squeeze the following items into the agenda somehow.

13:45 Media type description TF results [55]
      [***** inputs from joint meeting with XMLP? *****]

[55]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2004Jan/0001.h
tml

14:30 @wsdlLocation proposal 
      [***** ACTION: Umit to write a proposal on @wsdlLocation *****]

------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm desperately hoping the following issues are closed prior to the FTF:

1.  Issue 143: Referencing other type systems (Bijan) [.1]
    Text in 2.4.1 and 2.4.3 is inconsistent.
    Option 1:
      Clarify that extension type systems reuse the {message} component,
      (optionally) add a type system identifier property.
    Option 2:
      Clarify that extension type systems add corresponding extension
      Components, and {message} is XML Schema specific.

      [***** ACTION: Gudge to summarize proposal*****]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0046.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
2.  Issue 144: Why can't message reference simpleTypes? (Bijan) [.1]
  - and non-XML types in general (Youenn) [.2]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0046.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0131.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
3.  Issue 145: How can you tell which type system is in use? (Bijan)
[.1]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0046.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
4.  Issue 104 Appendix E cleanup (using alternate type systems) [.1]
    - Bijan's review [.2].
    - Might want to add OWL support to appendix E
      [***** STATUS: Awaiting concrete proposal from Jacek and 
             Bijan (does 143, 144, 145 cover it?) *****]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x104
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Sep/0136.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0182.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
5.  Issue 142: Name of "message" component (Bijan) [.1]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0046.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
6.  Issue 132: Message attribute optional [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x132

------------------------------------------------------------------
7:  Issue 122: messageReference semantics on binding [.1] 

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x122

------------------------------------------------------------------
8:  Issue 125: Make messageReference mandatory [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x125
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 16:36:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:02 UTC