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

Draft minutes of WSD 2004-11-04

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:56:10 -0500
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <1099601770.27642.7.camel@nc6000.w3.org>

Draft minutes of WSD 2004-11-04 are at
http://www.w3.org/2004/11/04-ws-desc-minutes.htm
and also below in plain text.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                          Web Services Description WG

4 nov 2004

   [2]Agenda

      [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0007.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/04-ws-desc-irc

Attendees

   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
    Anish Karmarkar        Oracle
    Jacek Kopecky          DERI
    Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
    Jonathan Marsh         Chair (Microsoft)
    David Orchard          BEA Systems
    Arthur Ryman           IBM
    Jerry Thrasher         Lexmark
    Asir Vedamuthu         webMethods
    Sanjiva Weerawarana    IBM
    Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.
    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
    Anish Karmarkar        Oracle
    Jacek Kopecky          DERI
    Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
    Jonathan Marsh         Chair (Microsoft)
    David Orchard          BEA Systems
    Arthur Ryman           IBM
    Jerry Thrasher         Lexmark
    Asir Vedamuthu         webMethods
    Sanjiva Weerawarana    IBM
    Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.

   Regrets

    Hugo Haas              W3C
    Tom Jordahl            Macromedia
    Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce

   Chair
          JMarsh

   Scribe
          dbooth

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Approval of Minutes
         2. [6]Review of Action Items
         3. [7]Administrivia
         4. [8]New (non-LC) Issues
         5. [9]Issue LC5f
         6. [10]Issue LC29d
     * [11]Summary of Action Items

     _________________________________________________________________

Approval of Minutes

   Last week's minutes approved.

Review of Action Items

   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.
   DONE [.5] 2004-09-16: Hugo to get a URI to use for DTD example
                         in Appendix E.1 (LC38)
   PENDING   2004-09-30: Arthur to add Z notation to Part 1.
   PENDING   2004-10-07: Paul to set up test suite directory
                         structure (Hugo assist)
   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.
   DONE [.3] 2004-10-21: Hugo to generate a summary of pub options.
   DONE [.4] 2004-10-21: Roberto to list some non-fatal errors
                         for consideration if that's useful.
   PENDING   2004-10-28: Glen to write up the relation between
                         features and modules for LC18.
   SUBSUMED  2004-10-28: Anish to provide a use case
                         for WSDLLocation via email.
   [1] [12]http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
   [2] [13]http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html
   [.3]
   [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0001.html
   [.4]
   [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0008.html
   [.5]
   [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0010.html

      [1] http://www.w3.org/
     [12] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
      [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0007.html
     [13] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html
     [14]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0001.html
     [15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0008.html
     [16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0010.html

Administrivia

   (Discussions of Jan F2F timing; JMarsh still working on trying to
   co-locate with the Addressing WG.)

   dbooth has a conflict Jan 12; Asir in Brisbane for XML mtgs the week
   of Jan 17; GlenD cannot do the week of Jan 24.

New (non-LC) Issues

   JMarsh: 4 new issues this week, including Amy's issue of importing
   WSDL 1.1, and Anne's issue of one interface per service.
   ... Media type description LC has been published.
   ... Need to decide how we wish to process issues on that document.

Issue LC5f

   <Roberto>
   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0008.html

     [17]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0008.html

   (Looking at Roberto's list of errors, to see if they are classified
   acceptably.)

   Roberto: For the <definitions> element to be valid, the entire
   document must be valid. Therefore if it is processed, the entire
   document must be validated.

   DaveO: Should we use some concept of partial validity, as in XML
   Schema?

   Arthur: In permitting portions of a WSDL document to be invalid, what
   is the objective? To make it easier on authors?
   ... Why not say that the result is undefined if the document is
   invalid?

   Roberto: That would be different than what we have now.

   dbooth: We've been trying to straddle two camps.

   Arthur: What's the benefit of specifying the behavior of invalid
   input?

   dbooth: It leads to interop problems if processors are lax (silently
   permitting invalid input), because the author may not realize that
the
   documen is invalid. Then it works on some processors and not on
   others.

   Roberto: What if a processor encounters a part of the document with a
   required extension that it doesn't understand?
   ... This notion of partial processing is hard to justify if you have
a
   global validity requirement.
   ... The objective is to permit a processor to ignore parts of the
   document that it doesn't need.
   ... I also think it's important to call out as errors: references to
   type system components that don't exist.
   ... You can do a lot of useful things even without the concrete
   definition of an element.
   ... I think it's useful to permit some processor recovery when the
   message type reference is bad, for example treating it as xs:any.

   <pauld> i thought we agreed in Cannes not to define classifications
or
   compliance of 'processors' but to just concentrate on if the document
   is valid or not?

   JMarsh: Anyone want to call all errors fatal? (No response)

   Asir: What is the point of listing broken QName references here and
   not in the fatal list?

   Roberto: Fatal list wins.

   Asir: Is there any other place where I would use a qname to reference
   components?
   ... Same comment applies to "(3.1.3) having an "element" attribute
   refer to a global type definition"

   Roberto: I thought as part of Z notation we were changing the way we
   refer to components.

   dbooth: I am sympathetic to Arthur's suggestion that we say the
result
   is undefined if the document is invalid, but we could also say a
   processor SHOULD report any error that it discovers. Perhaps this
   would allow latitude needed, but also encourage error reporting.

   Arthur: There were two kinds of relation in a component: one
   containing another; one referring to another. But the spec was
changed
   to view all collections as references, and this complicated the Z
   notation, because I needed to add an implicit ID on each component.

   PaulD: A long time back we discussed the distinction between doc
   validity and processor conformance. We agreed to focus on whether the
   document is valid or not. Saying "a processor SHOULD report errors"
is
   not helpful if it's embedded in a cell phone.

   Asir: As it stands today I see three entries in the non-fatal errors
   list, and everything is a component, these three ARE fatal errors.

   Roberto: Like DBooth, I like the GIGO rule, but there are some
details
   hidden that we still need to discuss. Need to be sure we don't
require
   validation. We should say the processor SHOULD report an error if it
   encounters one, but at present we say in some places where a
processor
   MUST fail, so we still need to clarify the difference between
   different kinds of errors.

   JMarsh: Our original motivation for defining a WSDL processor was to
   clarify the meaning of wsdl:required.

   dbooth: I think we can still define the meaning of wsdl:required
   without defining a WSDL processor.

   Arthur: My main concern was us trying to define "garbage-in,
   non-garbage out".

   <pauld> thinks it might be useful to have a notion of a 'validating
   wsdl processor' rather than just 'processor' which SHOULD report
   errors. anyone else can go GIGO, or follow Postel's law if they're
   sent an invalid *document*

   JMarsh: Imagine a non-well-formed document. (Well-formed, but an
extra
   char at the end.) Now imagine a WSDL processor that streams the input
   and only looks at what it needs. That wouldn't conform if we require
   detection of non-well-formedness errors.
   ... So it's hard to draw the line on what a minimal processor must
do.

   PaulD: That seems ok to me. Might want to introduce the concept of a
   validating WSDL processor.

   JMarsh: Could say "whatever processing you do, you should detect and
   report as many errors as you can".

   Roberto: I don't see how we can define the meaning of wsdl:required
   without defining a WSDL processor.
   ... There are also processor conformance requirements: must accept
XML
   Schema, etc.
   ... Right now I see only two things that need the WSDL processor
   definition: 1. you must fault if you encounter a required ext that
you
   don't understand; and 2. a wsdl:include with a non-dereferenceable
URI

   Arthur: Need to define the mustUnderstand concept.

   <pauld> processors "should detect and report as many errors as you
   can" sounds fine, if not a little "motherhood and apple pie"

   dbooth: I think the spec may already define the meaning of
   wsdl:required as an extension that MAY change the semantics of the
   WSDL document. Therefore, if a processor doesn't recognize one, then
   the result is undefined.

   <Arthur> less is better so if David can avoid the need for a
   processing model, I'm all for that

   JMarsh: DBooth and Roberto are tending toward a model based on
   document conformance, rather than defining a conformant processor. Is
   this direction promising? (Some think so.)

   <scribe> ACTION: dbooth to define the meaning of wsdl:required in
   terms of the document, rather than processor behavior.

   <Roberto> processor requirements that are independent of a processing
   model are ok, e.g. MUST support XML Schema

   dbooth: So it sounds like we're going in the direction of basing our
   error model on document validity, and GIGO. But we could still have
   some additional processor conformance requirements if we wish, such
as
   a general "SHOULD report errors it sees" and some specific
   requirements, such as MUST support XML Schema.

Issue LC29d

   [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Sep/0061.html

     [18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Sep/0061.html

   Any objections to accepting DaveO's proposed new text? Which is:

   [[

   * Mechanisms other than setting the serialization properties MAY

   modify the serialization format of the instance data

  
<[19]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/#instance_d
   ata#in

     [19]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/#instance_data#in

   stance_data> corresponding to the message. An example of such

   modification is the WSDL SOAP Binding HTTP URI Serialization rules

  
[20]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/#soap-defaul
   ts.

     [20]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/#soap-defaults.

   This binding specifies that the SOAP-Response Message Exchange
Pattern

   <[21]http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapresmep>

     [21]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapresmep%3E

   ([SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts

  
<[22]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/#SOAP12-PAR
   T2#SOA

     [22]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/#SOAP12-PART2#SOA

   P12-PART2> ], Section 6.3) only supports input message serialization
   as

   application/x-www-form-urlencoded. Other examples of such mechanisms

   are other message exchange patterns or bindings.

   ]]

   (No objections)

   dbooth: This also addresses an issue that I raised, of the old text
   being unclear about how the serialization format might be changed.

   [Adjourned]

Summary of New Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: dbooth to define the meaning of wsdl:required in
   ... terms of the document, rather than processor behavior.

     _________________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl 1.94 ([24]CVS
    log)
    $Date: 2004/11/04 20:23:04 $

     [23]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribe.perl
     [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/scribe.perl


-- 

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 20:56:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT