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

Summary, 9-11 Nov 2004 WS Description WG FTF

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:51:25 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A505AA1B2C@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Web Service Description Group
Summary, FTF meeting 9-11 November 2004
Sunnyvale, hosted by webMethods

-------------------------------------------------------
Summary
-------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday:
  Scheduling deliverables:
    Complete Last Call comments by January?
    Primer pub 15-20th Dec.
    SOAP 1.1 binding pub shortly.
    Assigning Media Types Note - issues will be tracked on WG issues
list
    
  Editorial issues:
    Issues 74g, 78 referred to editors
    
  Issue 5f:
    No final resolution, AIs to write up competing proposals
    ACTION:   DBooth and roberto to describe option 2 (remove definition
of 
              processor conformance, write up clear guidelines to 
              developers)
    ACTION:   DaveO to work on text for option 3 (redefining conformance
in 
              terms of building the component model)
    Potential new issues:
      1) Is it clear that a server must implement everything it's 
         description says it does?
      2) Un-recognized required features result in components,
un-recognized 
         required element-based extensions don't. Why the difference?

  Issue 49:
    Issue closed by:
      1) Rewording 8.1 as follows:
         "An element information item whose namespaces name is "...wsdl"

         and whose local part id definitions conforms to this 
         specification if it is a valid according to the XML schema 
         for that element as defined by this specification (uri to 
         schema) and additionally adheres to all the constraints 
         contained in this specification family and conforms to 
         the specifications of any extensions contained in it."
      2) add conformance sections to each of the bindings.
      3) + 8.3, clarify that "this specification" means Part 1.
      4) + adding a note advising extension specification authors to 
         have a clear statement of conformance.

  Issue 54:
    ACTION: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith proposal using an 
            extension namespace.

  Issue 48d:
    RESOLUTION: Use Glen's text to clarify AD example, explain in 
                intro to AD feature what the intended use is, and
                add that it SHOULD be used at interface level while
                discouraging use at binding level.

Wednesday:
  SOAP 1.1 Binding
    Asir's changes to Part 3 and proposal for SOAP 1.1 WD adopted as 
        modified by the following resolutions:
      RESOLUTION: Move the default attribute value in section 2.4.4 to
the 
                  mapping rule table.
      RESOLUTION: Add text indicating which MEPs are supported by the 
                  SOAP 1.2
                  and SOAP 1.1 bindings.
      RESOLUTION: Add to the text the "ignore fault codes and subcodes
for
                  soap 1.1
      RESOLUTION: Drop the soap11 mep ref in section 3.3
      RESOLUTION: remove the http method selection and soap mep
selection
                  rules
      RESOLUTION: add a non-normative reference to BP within the soap
1.1
                  binding spec as explanation of how in-only WSDL MEP 
                  maps to soap 1.1 over HTTP.
      RESOLUTION: Add text in section 3.2 that soap modules in 11 are
                  adopted from SOAP12 and then soap11 modules need to 
                  have a uri.
      RESOLUTION: drop SOAP feature in 11 binding and define one URI 
                  for SOAP11 HTTP binding
      RESOLUTION: add mention info from charter to soap11 intro
    NEW ISSUE: Make sure in-only mep is supported in wsdl soap12 binding
    ACTION: Asir to implement resolutions adopted at this FTF.
    ACTION: Part 3 Editors to roll in Asir's changes.
    After these actions are complete, we can publish the new spec.
    
  Issue LC19
    RESOLUTION: Issue LC19 closed without action.

  Issue LC75a
    RESOLUTION: Issue LC75a closed without action.
    ACTION: Sanjiva to write the rationale for rejecting LC75a

  Issue LC55, LC56, LC61d
    ACTION: Roberto to write up the addition of infault and outfault at
the 
            binding level plus modifications at the component model.

  Formal Objections:
    F&P/Compositor compromise from Glen:
      Put F&P into Part 2 as a predefined extension.  In exchange, add 
      compositors to F&P.  Simplify proposal for compositors based on 
      Cannes suggestions.
    ACTION: Glen will post an e-mail describing the proposal.
    
    Unique GED requirement:
      ACTION: DBooth will produce text for the spec re: slide 12 of his 
              presentation.
      ACTION: Editor remove ambiguity if it exists
      ACTION: Jonathan to create 3 new issues from slide 25 on points 1,
2,
              and 4
      ACTION: Sanjiva will write up this proposal and email it to the
list 
              as a response to the objection.


Thursday:
  Z update
    ACTION: Hugo to update the makefile to generate the spec with Z
    ACTION: Arthur to write up a sample of what a rewritten spec using
an 
            infoset-based component model would look like
  
  Test Suite:
    ACTION: Arthur to issue a call for test documents
    ACTION: Anish to propose additions to the test suite for the purpose
of 
            interoperability testing.

  Issue LC50
    ACTION: Hugo to ask the XMLP wg to clarify the issue around the 
            response in the SOAP/HTTP binding
    ACTION: DBooth and Anish to clarify what a node is

  Issue LC76a
    Postpone till definition of a node is available
    
  Issue LC48b
    RESOLUTION: Add text to part 2 and 3 about WSDLMEP and SOAP mep 
                mapping that ponts to section 2.3 of part 3
    ACTION: Editors of part 2 and 3 to add text about WSDLMEP and SOAP
mep 
            mapping that ponts to section 2.3 of part 3

  Issue LC59a
    ACTION: Hugo send email about what HTTP request is when in-only is
used
    ACTION: Hugo to check the HTTP bindings really support the MEPs it  
            claims to support
    RESOLUTION: In-Optional-Out and Out-Optional-In will be marked at
risk 
                when entering CR and will be removed unless we see 2 
                interoperable implementations

  Issue LC59c
    RESOLUTION: we don't think it's necessary for the working group to
work 
                on it. Expect third party to chime in.

  Issue LC76b
    RESOLUTION: Editorial. Editors bring it back if they see issues.

  Issue LC76C
    ACTION: Hugo to contact Amy with our interpretation and ask for 
            clarification

  Issue LC61e
    RESOLUTION: Close with no change to the spec. reply to issue
submitter

  Issue LC59b
    RESOLUTION: close with no change to spec. we will suport MTOM.
SOAP1.1 
                binding is not part of our recommendation and support
for 
                SwA is not part of our plan.

  Issue LC61a
    ACTION: Umit to check on operation@style
    RESOLUTION: Move all the styles and RPC signatures section to part
2. 
                This address the perception concern, no change to the
use 
                of the styles.
  
  Issue LC74d
    RESOLUTION: Drop "The LocalPart of the output element's QName 
                is obtained by concatenating the name of the operation
and 
                the string value "Response"" from RPC style"

  Issue LC74f
    RESOLUTION: close with no change to spec. reply to issue submitter
that 
                we don't have a glossary.if not happen with the
definition, 
                let us know.

  Issue LC74e
    ACTION: Roberto check on comments in 74e and come up with proposal.
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 20:51:35 GMT

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