Web Services Description teleconference
5 Feb 2004


See also: IRC log


Erik Ackerman Lexmark
David Booth W3C
Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems
Glen Daniels Sonic Software
Paul Downey British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet Canon
Yaron Goland BEA Systems
Tom Jordahl Macromedia
Jacek Kopecky Systinet
Philippe Le Hégaret W3C
Amelia Lewis TIBCO
Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft)
Ingo Melzer DaimlerChrysler
Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle
Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon
Bijan Parsia University of Maryland MIND Lab
Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates
William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard
Asir Vedamuthu webMethods
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
Umit Yalcinalp Oracle
Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.

Dietmar Gaertner Software AG
David Orchard BEA Systems
Arthur Ryman IBM
Adi Sakala IONA Technologies
Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft



approval of minutes

Scribe: approval postponed

Review of Action Items

(See action summary below)


JM: we're meeting on the 4th and 5th of March
... we'll have less than two full days
... suggesting to extend our telcons to 2 hours or add a new telcon

<sanjiva> +1 for extending this call rather than doing another one

<Ingo> I cannot stay longer.

JM: suggestions on extending the telcon time?

<Ingo> Start 20 minutes earlier?

Scribe: some people can't make it later, some have reservations about starting earlier

JM: let's shoot for two hours, arranging agenda items according to people's availability
... the extension is only for February (until the f2f)

new issues

JJM: I added all the issues from the agenda into the issues list

SW: some issues might be handled via email

JM: we have to decide at the telcons, but yes some are easy

summary of existing part 1 and 2 issues

JM: can issues 75 and 90 be closed - moved to edtodo as editorial?

RESOLUTION: issues 75 and 90 closed - moved to edtodo as editorial

Scribe: issue 75 closed by becoming obsolete
... issue 79 covered by an action item
... issue 96:

SW: we don't have a concrete proposal yet

JM: will try to schedule this for a telcon

Scribe: issue 97: schema language for soap encoding

JM: will any proposal result in changes in part 1?

JK: not necessarily

Scribe: issue 104:

bijan: we might want to add OWL support to appendix E
... I'll say yea or nay next week

Scribe: issue 109:
... people working on it
... issue 111:

JM: mostly rejected at the f2f, what say BEA?

YG: we want this issue open, but if the group is not interested...

JM: if you'd file a minority opinion, we'd like a concrete proposal on this issue, otherwise we could just close it

TJ: WSDL 2 is not same as WSDL 1.1, we made it easier

<sanjiva> +1 to what Tom said

YG: WSDL 2 is still not hitting the 80/20 in terms of simplicity

<umit> +1 to Tom

JM: how much effort are you (BEA) willing to put into this?

<sanjiva> (at least the part about how WSDL 2.0 is much nicer than 1.1 .. not necessarily to the part about how WSDL 1.1 was a random walk thru attributes and elements ;-))
... -1 to introducing an inlined syntax .. just pre-warning the IBM position on this.

JM: issue 111 stays open, up to BEA to champion it

Scribe: issue 112:

YG: I made a proposal, it was not discussed

GD: I still haven't sent in my proposal

YG: let's discuss this more in the mailing list

JM: we discussed it at the Nov f2f, it just isn't well documented yet

GD: I'll get that done by the end of the weekend

JM: let's discuss this more in the mailing list

Scribe: some discussion about whether it's too late for such comments as BEA's

JM: we can't reject the comments, they are quite substantial

TJ: are we removing headers from the binding?

GD: I'd like to, but probably no, I'm going to make a proposal for headers in binding (set by f&p)

YG: can it be discussed in a smaller group? It might be productive...

<Philippe> Header task force?

JM: we can do a small informal TF, I don't want a full TF with its overhead

YG: I'll send a mail inviting for a chat

WSDL 1.1 XML Schema licencing terms

issue 108

Scribe: RC proposed a solution making the value and constraint attributes into elements

GD: let's open an issue on simple-type property values

JM: are we ready to address this or is the new issue a prerequisite?
... any objection to adopting Roberto's resolution?

GD: I prefer to attack the new issue first

RC: the reworking depending on the new issue result would be pretty minor

<sanjiva> General +1 for adopting trivial changes that close an issue ;-)

JM: so again, any objections?

issue 98

JM: waiting for Jacek's opinion on this

<sanjiva> I vote that we close issue 98 by saying @style is single URI valued. SOAP 1.1 tried to do this with @encodingStyle and while it was cool in theory, it was never really used ..

PLH: no existing style was reused for HTTP style
... we don't need multiple styles

dbooth: subset is not the only way to think about multiple styles
... independent styles might be combined

SW: I think we should keep a single valued style attribute

<Roberto> +1 for a single style

YG: since combinations might become complex we should keep it a single style

UY: we can't guarantee that the styles won't interact
... on the other hand a style combining other styles will not be recognized as such

<dbooth> By "mutually exclusive" do you mean "contradictory" or "orthogonal"?

GD: styles are hints, multi should be no problem

JK: what happened to my removing style attribute proposal?

JM: next on the agenda

<umit> what I meant was orthogonal

JM: getting close to a poll

PLH: we haven't seen a usecase

UY: Glen has a point, processing would be straighforward

JK: the next issue could remove this issue altogether

UY: we're trying to solve a semantic problem by changing the syntax
... Jack's proposal just changes the syntax, too

<prasad> Said, applying the 80-20 rule, the complexity of going from 1-many on the spec as well as the implementation impact concern, I like speak against the proposal

JK: styles can in fact be viewed as extensions and there can be multiple extensions on single things

JM: (not chair) explicit styles are beneficial because a tool now know what this extension is meant to be, even if unknown
... I don't see the composability problems, really

<sanjiva> Response to Jonathan's comment: agreed, but we're not precluding someone from doing that using an extension attribute. We should focus on things that we know a need exists .. this one is speculative. SOAP 1.1's thing was speculative too and no one used it.

UY: prefer strongly this order of the issues: first multi style, then removing style attribute

<TomJordahl> +1 to a single style
... +1 to Umits suggestion that we decide if we want multiple to be allowed
... -1 to Jaceks proposal for an alternative style specification

<sanjiva> +1 to Tom's -1

UY: would every style have to invent a namespace?

Scribe: JK, JM: yes

UY: from the processing POV the style attribute is easier

<prasad> There is a difference here in leaving open extensibility pt. and specc'ing in multiple URIs to start with.

UY: I don't see the value of Jack's proposal

<sanjiva> So have we switched from the issue 98 to issue 113?

JK: the value is the removing of a term - an operation style

UY: I want to keep the style concept in WSDL

<sanjiva> +1 to Umit's opposition to JK's solution for issue 113

UY: I'm inclining now to allow multiple values of style

<Roberto> +1 to Tom's -1 (and Sanjiva's +1 to Tom's -1)

SW: Jack's proposal removes first-class support for RPC

<prasad> +1 to Roberto and apply the math accordingly to other+s and -s

JK: my proposal doesn't add complexity, it removes it

<sanjiva> Jack, @style is *not* an extension - that's a part of WSDL! We recognize that schemas may be structured according to certain rules and then recognizing that the "RPC style" is one (and the only) such important style that the WSDL group cares to define.

JK: it supports RPC in the same "first-class" way as the style attribute

<umit> +1 to Sanjiva, can I make it ++ ;-)

SW: do we have a specific scenario pushing this?

JM: HTTP binding style brought this discussion up, but it seems it's not necessary now

UY: Jack, do you agree that the style attribute is equivalent to your 113 proposal?

JK: almost, the style attr approach adds more information

POLL: issue 98:

Scribe: a) yes, have stye attr a list of URIs
... b) no, keep a single URI

AV: a

SW: b

UY: a

PY: ?

<bijan> bijan: abstains, btw

Eric: a

dbooth: a

RC: b

<Ingo> Ingo: abstain.

pauld: a

TJ: b

JK: a

<yaron> abstain

<umit> correction: style is with multiple attribute values is equivalent to JK's proposal

PY: a

RESOLUTION: style attr gets multivalued

SW: can someone write this up?

<dbooth> +1 to JacekK

JK: suggest order is insignificant

<pauld> +1

<asir> +1

JK: it's a conjunction, an "and" logical operation

SW: I suggested originally that order be significant

JM: what's a tool do with that order?

UY: if it's about applying the styles, there is a relationship
... if there are no relationships between the styles (if they are mutually exclusive) order does nothing

dbooth: if it's unordered, the "restriction" is still doable by listing the URIs

JM: can we go with an unordered list?

RESOLUTION: style multivalues are unordered

issue 113

JM: summarizes Jack's proposal

JK: with the previous resolutions, the proposal may be rejected

JM: any objections?

RESOLUTION: issue 113 closed with no action (rejecting the proposal)

May f2f?

<dbooth> +1 to sri lanka!!!

<Philippe> 17-18 May 2004
... AC meeting (co-located with WWW2004 conference, 19-21 May), New York, NY, USA

JK: offering hosting in Prague

<dbooth> +1 to prague also!

SW: an option for IBM to host the May f2f in NY


Summary of Action Items

PENDING   2003-09-18: Marsh to review the QA operational
DONE [.2] 2003-10-09: Bijan to look into message extensibility
Issues (Appendix E, Jacek's review) wrt RDF data,
and discuss with Jacek.
PENDING 2003-11-04: Glen to write up rationale for removing headers
(and?) proposal for a generic header-adding
PENDING 2004-01-08: Pauld to write up examples of schemas for the
RETIRED 2004-01-15: Sanjiva to sketch out changes to abstract model
resulting from abstract faults proposal.
PENDING 2004-01-28: Philippe and JMarsh will look at the ipr for
test suite.
PENDING 2004-01-28: Sanjiva to consistify the @name attributes.
PENDING 2004-01-29: David Booth to suggest improvements to the
spec clarifying "WSDL processor".
PENDING 2004-01-30: DaveO to write up a proposal for augmenting
schema information to enable versioned data.
PENDING 2004-01-30: DavidO to write request to schema group to
address the issue of schema not supporting
ignoring extended content.
PENDING 2004-01-30: Tom to write proposal on version attribute
(modeled after schema's).
PENDING 2004-01-30: Umit to write a proposal on @wsdlLocation
PENDING 2004-01-30: Jonathan to investigate typo in last f2f
meeting on _S_erviceType.
DONE 2004-01-30: Umit to forward a link/proposal on media
types to the WG list
DONE [.3] 2004-01-30: Jonathan to add s/@message/@element/ on a
teleconference agenda.
DONE [.3] 2004-01-30: Jonathan to add s/@messageReference/@label/
on a teleconference agenda.
PENDING 2004-01-30: Issues list editor to retitle Issues 113 and
PENDING 2004-01-30: Philippe to draft a note for the group around
safe operations.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0182.html
[.3] see below.

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl 1.57 (CVS log)
$Date: 2004/01/29 20:15:51 $