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

[corrected] Minutes, 3 June 2004 WS Description teslcon

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:52:28 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA203D79D6E@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

[One correction from Ugo below***]

Web Services Description Working Group
03 June 2004 Telcon

Present:
 David Booth            W3C
 Allen Brookes          Rogue Wave Software
 Roberto Chinnici       Sun Microsystems
 Ugo Corda              SeeBeyond
 Glen Daniels           Sonic Software
 Paul Downey            British Telecommunications
 Youenn Fablet          Canon
 Hugo Haas              W3C
 Tom Jordahl            Macromedia
 Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
 Jonathan Marsh         Chair (Microsoft)
 Josephine Micallef     Telcordia/SAIC 
 Jeff Mischkinsky       Oracle
 Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce
 Jean-Jacques Moreau    Canon
 David Orchard          BEA Systems
 Bijan Parsia           University of Maryland MIND Lab
 Arthur Ryman           IBM
 Igor Sedukhin          Computer Associates
 Jerry Thrasher         Lexmark
 Asir Vedamuthu         webMethods
 Sanjiva Weerawarana    IBM
 Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.

Regrets:
 Amelia Lewis           TIBCO
 Adi Sakala             IONA Technologies



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda

1.  Assign scribe.  Lucky minute taker for this week is one of:
      Erik Ackerman, Adi Sakala, Tom Jordahl,
      William Vambenepe, Prasad Yendluri, Jean-Jacques Moreau

Kevin Liu is the scribe

--------------------------------------------------------------------
2.  Approval of minutes:
  - May 19-21 FTF [.1, .2, .3] and Summary [.4]
  - May 27th [.5]  Late regrets from Jeff.

Minutes Approved with no objection

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0075.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0074.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0073.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0072.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0087.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------
3.  Review of Action items [.1].
RETIRED   2004-01-28: Philippe and JMarsh will look at the ipr for 
                      test suite.
PENDING   2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going.
PENDING   2004-04-29: Part 1 editors to adopt Jacek's "purpose of the 
                      binding" text, without "interchangeable"
                      endpoints, and using "confidentiality" (or 
                      similar) instead of TLS.
DONE [.5] 2004-05-19: Media type editors to implement these 
                      resolutions prior to publication.
PENDING   2004-05-19: Editors to include in the primer an example 
                      that uses MTOM.  (Issue 72) 
PENDING   2004-05-19: Editors to make propogation of modules and f&p
                      use the nearing enclosing scope.  (Issue 180)
PENDING   2004-05-19: Editors to fix component model to remove 
                      default* properties, use mapping from syntax 
                      instead.  (Issue 182)
PENDING   2004-05-20: Editors to incorporate Hugo's full potato 
                      proposal.  (Issue 54)
PENDING   2004-05-20: David Orchard to update HTTP binding to 
                      include discussion of how to generate an 
                      accepts header from schema annotations 
                      conformant to the media types extension 
                      document, and to use outputSerialization 
                      based on that information.  
PENDING   2004-05-20: Editors to incorporate http:{properties} into 
                      binding.
PENDING   2004-05-21: Sanjiva to implement the resolution that 
                      @soapaction not there means no soapaction.  
                      (Issue 1)
PENDING   2004-05-21: Part 2 Editors to add such a statement. 
                      (Issue 191)
PENDING   2004-05-21: Part 3 Editors to add a statement to relate 
                      each of the two soap meps to wsdl meps. 
                      (Issue 191)
PENDING   2004-05-21: Editors to add ednotes to the spec to 
                      indicate areas that had contention.  (Issue 
                      190)
PENDING   2004-05-21: Editors to remove @separator from HTTP 
                      binding.  (Issue 190)
PENDING   2004-05-21: DaveO to write up a scenario to motivate path
                      creation on a per-operation basis.  (Issue 
                      190)
PENDING   2004-05-21: Editors to write up that we allow 
                      http:version etc. in the soap binding when 
                      the protocol is http.  (Issue 190) 
PENDING   2004-05-21: Editors to update part 3 to say that for SOAP 
                      Response MEPs the URI will be generated 
                      following the HTTP binding rules for 
                      generating a URI (for GET).  (Issue 61)
PENDING   2004-05-21: Editors to update soap binding default rules 
                      to allow use of MTOM. (Issue 184)
PENDING   2004-05-21: Amy to provide wording to go into spec to say 
                      that our bindings only support the identified 
                      MEPs but others can be handled if appropriate 
                      rules are defined elsewhere.  (Issue 155) 
DONE [.2] 2004-05-27: Hugo will specify how to use XOP, MTOM re 
                      Issue 154.
DONE [.3] 2004-05-27: Glen will open an issue on How to mark in 
                      WSDL which elements are optimizable. 
                      (Deferred till Hugo's is complete.) 
DONE [.4] 2004-05-27: Paul will make a proposal (to map HTTP faults
                      to abstract faults) within one week or drop 
                      the suggestion.
PENDING   2004-05-27: Editors to add http:faultSerialization 
                      attribute.
PENDING   2004-05-27: DaveO will write up better description of 
                      this issue (189).

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0088.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0089.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0086.html
[.5] http://www.w3.org/2004/04/xml-media-types.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
4.  Administrivia
  a. Upcoming FTFs
     - August 2-4 (London)
       Logistics [.1], registration [.2].
     - September 14-16 (Toronto) [.3]
  b. Review of I18N WS Task Force documents [.4]
  c. Public photos? [.5]

Bijan is concerned with making his picture public without control. 
Decided not to make group photos public.


[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/04-08-f2f.htm
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Mar/0064.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004May/0000.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0034.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Jun/0000.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
5.  Task Force Status.
 a. Media type description
  - Update on publication of 1st Working Draft [.4]

close to publish the media type document. 
Hugo: working on it. expect it will be done end of next week


 b. QA & Testing
  - Suggested QA plan [.1]
  - More details from Arthur [.2]
  - Interop bake-off

Jonathan spoke with Hugo. would be nice to have implementations from
members and community after last call.


 c. Schema versioning
  - Waiting to hear back from Schema on my draft "charter."
  - Henry's validate-twice write-up [.3]

still coming out.

[.1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/att-0029/QA_Oper
ational_Checklist.htm
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0037.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0019.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0082.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
6.  New Issues.  Issues list [.1].
  - How to mark which elements to optimize (Hugo) [.2]
  - (I will catalog Mark N's issues soon).

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0089.html

Jonathan: a little confused about what the issue is about
Hugo: one use case - a service provider really wants somebody to use xop
optimization for some reason. didn't get answer for an earlier
questions. It's not clear if something is required to be optimized, but
what if optimization doesn't happen?
Glen: more concerned that elements tend to be optimized, but it's kind
of weird to require something to be optimized
Asir: if you want to specify something to optimize, especially something
nested in the tree, wsdl doesn't have the facility to do it
Jonathan: xop optimization is based on the schema, and you can go to any
part of the schema. 
Hugo: proposed 
DavidB: agreed with Glen
Prasad: concerned about the complexity introducing such thing in schema.
it should be in the binding.
Jonathan: optimization is usually for binary data
Glen: is it indicated by the media type?
Ugo: receiving side might not be able to digest something that is not
optimized. We could provide a hint for that. (The general concept of
"hint" was already in WSDL 1.1). [*** corrected 7 Jun 2004]
Kevin: is that about client requirement?
jonathan: service can also receive message. 
Ugo: there is ambiguity what to optimize, what not to
DavidB: that ambiguity is a feature of xop
Glen: would it be sufficient to indicate the media type and in the
binding saying "please use http optimization feature"?
Jonathan: WSDL only indicates that mtom may be used. Can we put this on
to XMLP group to provide a way in MTOM/xop to indicate some elements are
required to be optimized? 

should we do a straw poll: do you see we need a facility to indicate
some parts of a message is required to be optimized?

More discussion between ugo, glen, jonathan, and Asir about if we really
need the facility. more are saying it's necessary to be able to indicate
the requirement, but question is where is the right place to do. in
schema, part of mediatype annotation, some new wsdl construct, or in the
http optimization feature? is it reasonable to ask XMLP group to work on
this?

straw poll: do we need to be able to say which parts of a message must
be optimized?

Yes:  7
No:4
a bunch of Abstain

We have a preference to push this forward. will ask XMLP if they think
such facility is reasonable, and can they consider add something to
indicate the requirement in the mtom feature. will see what happen

ACTION: Jonathan to communicate this to the XMLP WG.

------------------------------------------------------------------
7.  Issue 154: Multi-part post in HTTP binding [.1]
  - Hugo's proposal to close with no action [.2]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x154
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0088.html

Hugo: I realize that when open the issue I was misled by the name of
http optimization mechanism. 
Actually We can use multi-part related by using mtom feature, for both
soap and http.

Issue is closed with no action. 

Do we want to send a comment to XMLP that the name is confusing?

ACTION: Hugo to write a message for the WSD group to XMLP about the
confusing name of http optimization feature


------------------------------------------------------------------
8.  Issue 166: Binding of Faults in HTTP Binding [.1]
  - Hugo's proposal [.2]
  - Paul's fault proposal [.3] Hugo's response [.4]

Paul: recap the issue 
Hugo:  Paul wants to specify more than one error code for a fault.  It
makes sense to me to specify only one error code.
Sanjiva: Paul is trying to map http fault to WSDL fault. it should be
the other way around

more discussions among Sanjiva, Paul, Hugo and Jonathan. Sanjiva and
Hugo suggest going with a modified version of Paul's proposal for ONE
http code

Jonathan: sounds we are in agreement, but still confused. need a write
up of a full proposal?

Hugo, Sanjiva: feel comfortable with Paul's proposal if it's modified
for one code
Paul: ok with one code

RESOLUTION: Close 166 with adopting Paul's proposal with ONE code

ACTION: editors to incorporate Paul's proposal with ONE http code

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x166
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0032.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0086.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0002.html



running out of time. the following items are not covered

Adjourn at 9:30 AM Pacific.

------------------------------------------------------------------
9.  Issue 189: Binding message content to URI [.1]
  - Is this DaveO's action item?

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x189

------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Issue 158: Setting HTTP headers in the HTTP binding [.1]
  - ADD related.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x158

------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution of the above issues completes Part 3!!
------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Issue 112: New headers/body style? [.1]
  - ADD proposal [.2]
  - friendly amendment [.3]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x112
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0167.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0170.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Issue 130: Need async request/response HTTP binding [.1]
  - David Orchard's Async proposal [.2]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x130
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0029.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
13. XML 1.1 issues (time permitting)
  - Issue 174: Tie WSDL conformance to XML conformance? [.1]
  - Issue 175: Is it valid for a XML 1.1 document to import or 
               include a XML 1.0 document (and vice versa)? [.2]
  - Issue 176: Can a WSDL 2.0 XML 1.1 document contain (or 
               reference), a XML Schema 1.0 type description? [.3]
  - Issue 177: Normative dependence on XML Schema 1.0 precludes 
               XML 1.1 [.4]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x174
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x175
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x176
[.4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x177

------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled for future telcons
------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Effort to simplify our spec.
  - DavidB [.1] and Jonathan [.2] have provided some data points.
  - Arthur's suggestion [.3]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0162.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0006.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0028.html
Received on Monday, 7 June 2004 18:52:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT