- From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:14:04 -0700
- To: Allen Brookes <abrookes@roguewave.com>
- Cc: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
See comments below Allen Brookes wrote: >Web Services Description Working Group >Minutes: 29 July 2004 telcon > > >Present: > 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 > Martin Gudgin Microsoft > Hugo Haas W3C > Tom Jordahl Macromedia > Jacek Kopecky DERI > Amelia Lewis TIBCO > Kevin Canyang Liu SAP > Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft) > Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon > David Orchard BEA Systems > Bijan Parsia University of Maryland MIND Lab > Asir Vedamuthu webMethods > Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM > Umit Yalcinalp Oracle > Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc. > >Regrets: > Helen Chen Agfa-Gevaert N. V. > Peter Madziak Agfa-Gevaert N. V. > Arthur Ryman IBM > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Agenda 1. Assign scribe. >Allen Brookes >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >2. Approval of minutes: - July 22 [.1], Ugo's correction [.2], Asir's >correction [.3] >[.1] ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/att-0308/040722>- >ws-desc.htm >[.2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0309.html> >[.3] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0312.html> >Minutes approved >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >3. Review of Action items [.1]. >PENDING 2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going. >PENDING 2004-05-19: Editors to include in the primer an example > that uses MTOM. (Issue 72) >DONE 2004-05-21: Editors to add ednotes to the spec to > indicate areas that had contention. (Issue > 190) >DONE 2004-06-17: Editors to incorporate David Booth's clarification > in section 8.3 about what required means on MTOM > feature. >DONE 2004-07-08: Editors to implement resolution to 177 as > amended. > (Some Part 1? component may remain. Roberto will check. Plus >conformance section.) >DONE [.2] 2004-07-08: Glen to verifiy composition model. >DONE 2004-07-15: People who want to file a minority opinion > should do so by July 22. >PENDING 2004-07-15: Editors to incorporate Operation Name proposal v3 >DONE 2004-07-15: Editors to implement > /www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0047.html (Issue 211). >DONE 2004-07-15: Editors to implement > /www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0011.html (Issue 236). >DONE 2004-07-15: Editors to indicate error for AD HTTP binding in > case of conflict. (Issue 241). >DONE 2004-07-22: GlenD to review Part2 text relevant to AD feature. >DONE 2004-07-22: Part2 Editors to follow up with GlenD about Part2 > text relevant to AD feature. >DONE 2004-07-22: Sanjiva to check on logistics for Toronto F2F. >DONE [.3] 2004-07-22: DBooth to follow up on XMLP request for response > on comment. >DONE 2004-07-22: Part 1 Editors to add Paul's clarification of > fault in an appropriate spot in Part 1. >DONE 2004-07-22: Hugo to incorporate media type fix into part 3. >DONE 2004-07-22: Part 3 editors to move pseudo-schemas up front > (Issue 237) >DONE 2004-07-22: Part 3 editors to incorporate Issue 189 > proposal 1, 2b, and c (from Asir). >DONE 2004-07-22: Editors to incorporate proposal for Issue 243. >DONE 2004-07-22: Editors to incorporate proposal for Issue 246. >DONE 2004-07-22: Editors to incorporate proposal for Issue 248. >DONE 2004-07-22: Editorial action to remove ed note on media type. >DONE 2004-07-22: Editors to incorporate proposal for Issue 238, > come back to WG if there are issues. >DONE 2004-07-22: Editors to incorporate proposal for Issue 249, > come back to WG if there are issues. >DONE 2004-07-22: Editors to update schemas for SOAP and HTTP > bindings. > >[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions >[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0323.html >[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0315.html > >3 formal objections filed, composition, features and properties, unique geds > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >5. Task Force Status. >a. Media type description - 1st Working Draft Published [.1] >b. MTOM/XOP > - Last Call Published [.2] >c. QA & Testing > - Suggested QA plan [.3] > - More details from Arthur [.4] > - Interop bake-off >d. Schema versioning > - Waiting to hear back from Schema on my draft "charter." > - Henry's validate-twice write-up [.5] >[.1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-media-types-20040608/> >[.2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0052.html> >[.3] ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/att-0029/QA_Oper> >ational_Checklist.htm >[.4] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0037.html> >[.5] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0019.html> >------------------------------------------------------------------ >6. New Issues. Issues list [.1]. > - none >[.1] <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html> >------------------------------------------------------------------ >7. Issue 238: Consistent placement of <feature> and <property> [.1] > - Details (Sanjiva) [.2] - Roberto to check. > - Editors have completed, propose closing issue. > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x238 ><http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html> > [.2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0267.html> > Closed, has been implemented >------------------------------------------------------------------ >8. Issue 249: HTTP binding mismatch and identification missing (Hugo) [.1] > - Proposal [.2] > - Editors have completed, propose closing issue. > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x189 ><http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html> > [.2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0285.html> > Closed, already dealt with >------------------------------------------------------------------ >9. Issue 248: Property component's dependency on XML Schema [.1] > - Proposal [.2] > - Editors have completed, propose closing issue. > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x248 ><http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html> > [.2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0283.html> > Closed >------------------------------------------------------------------ >10. Issue 250: Properties within wsoap:module [.1] > - Proposal [.2] > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x250 ><http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html> > [.2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0302.html> > Glen: Property should not be inside soap module > Proposal - remove property from soap module > ... Remove from syntax and schema > Proposal accepted, issue closed. > ACTION: Editors implement proposal >------------------------------------------------------------------ >11. Other new issues > - Glen's property comments [.1, .2] > - Glen's composition model comment [.3] - Don't reopen! > - Help with unique GED language [.4] > - Issue 211 resolution clarification [.5] > - pls review text added for what "required" means [.6] > [.1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0319.html> > [.2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0320.html> > [.3] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0323.html> > [.4] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0328.html> > [.5] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0331.html> > [.6] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0333.html> > Glen: Required flag on properties makes no sense > ... must be understood by the runtime anyway. > Umit: required means that the property needs to be given a value not >that it be understood > ... don't remove now > Jonathan: we can discuss this next week > ACTION: editors incorporate "some new text" into section 2.8.1 of >part 1 > This is not what we have agreed to. We have agreed not to do right now going to last call, and we will deal with this as a LC issue. I don't think my telephone connection was that bad. ;-) The action is perhaps to put this into the agenda, which Jonathan suggested for the f2f, but not any new text into the spec right now. > Issue: composition model comment - Don't reopen! > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0323.html> > Glen: should reopen > Amy: Is there any new information that warrants reopening? > Glen: will submit a last call comment > Jonathan: we'll add this to the agenda for next week > Issue: Help with unique GED language > Amy: can we point to Architecture document for definitions of terms? > > DBooth: might have used service where provider agent would be more >appropriate > Amy: no need to introduce term provider agent > [sanjiva] +1 to not introducing the term "provider agent" > Amy: need a term to describe partner of the service > DBooth: it was decided at the Sonic meeting to use terms from >Architecture document > DBooth: use of terms in document consistent now > DBooth: service would be ok in the text for this issue > ACTION: Editors incorporate text from thread "please review text" >(333) with changes of provider agent to service > Issue message 328 > [asir] link is ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0328.html> > Sanjiva: this is written in terms of XML Schema, should be more >general > Editors - Change wsdl:required and wsdl:operation to component model >representations > Issue 211 clarification > ACTION: editors remove confusing sentence about not requiring >operation to be bound > Issue 189 proposal > Hugo: the language is the spec now is correct > Sanjiva: information in the URI will not be in the body > DaveO: No we decided the opposite > Issue 189 closed, text is, or will be, in the spec > Back to issue 211 > Jonathan: Does the first sentence add anything to the draft? > ACTION: Editors remove entire text > Issue "part 2 features stuff" > Glen: already resolved, "other significant edits" mostly done, needs >some addional text, Asir will review, Amy will add. > Issue AD feature questions > [sanjiva] This is the mail I just sent ref binding the AD feature: ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0382.html> > Hugo: SHOULD or MUST, application feature needs to be serialized? > Should be MUST > Sanjiva, question about 177, is it still open or fully implemented? > [alewis] ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0370.html> > Hugo: what escaping mechanism should be used? > ... propose that only ascii is allowed serialized in UTF8, otherwise >ignore > Amy: Doesn't http allow more than ascii? > Amy: header NAMES must be ascii > Amy: restrict header names to ascii, values to any UTF8 string > [sanjiva] Shouldn't we rename wsdl20-patterns to wsdl20-extensions >??? > Adopt Hugo's proposal which is as Amy clarified. > Hugo: is the term "constraint" defined? > Glen: yes, in features and properties section > Sanjiva: why didn't we define a feature as a complexType? > Jonathan: Do we need a way to construct a wrapper element? > Glen: need a comment about how the wrapper element is defined > ACTION: editors add comment > ... also delete ed note. > Jonathan: proposal is to move material into part 2 in a new section > ACTION: editors to move "AD Feature/HTTP binding" material into part >2 > DBooth: point to formal objections in status section > Formal vote to move to last call > Unanimous agreement on last call > > > >Formal vote results on moving to LC Aug 3rd: > >Yes: W3C, Rogue Wave Software, Sun Microsystems, Sonic Software, British >Telecommunications, Canon, Microsoft, Macromedia, TIBCO, BEA Systems, >University of Maryland MIND Lab, webMethods, IBM, Oracle >No: (none) > > I also requested to go into record that although Oracle votes to go forward with the LC, I am concerned the way that we have been trying to close some issues within the past couple of weeks without taking an action right now, and essentially deferring them to LC. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Action Summary > ACTION: Editors implement proposal [1] > ACTION: editors incorporate "some new text" into section 2.8.1 of >part 1 [2] > ACTION: Editors incorporate text from thread "please review text" >(333) with changes of provider agent to service [3] > ACTION: editors remove confusing sentence about not requiring >operation to be bound [4] > ACTION: Editors remove entire text [5] > ACTION: editors add comment [6] > ACTION: editors to move "AD Feature/HTTP binding" material into part >2 [7] > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >----------------------------------------- > IRC Log > recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/07/29-ws-desc-irc#T16-36-03 ><http://www.w3.org/2004/07/29-ws-desc-irc> > > > > > -- Umit Yalcinalp Consulting Member of Technical Staff ORACLE Phone: +1 650 607 6154 Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 18:28:16 UTC