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

Minutes, 14 Oct 2004 WS Description WG

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:30:40 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A5054E7994@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Web Services Description Working Group;
2004-10-14 conference call minutes

Attendance:
Erik Ackerman          Lexmark
David Booth            W3C
Allen Brookes          Rogue Wave Software
Ugo Corda              SeeBeyond
Paul Downey            British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet          Canon
Hugo Haas              W3C
Jonathan Marsh         Chair (Microsoft)
Jeff Mischkinsky       Oracle
Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce
Jean-Jacques Moreau    Canon
Arthur Ryman           IBM
Jerry Thrasher         Lexmark
Asir Vedamuthu         webMethods

Regrets:
Helen Chen             Agfa-Gevaert N. V.
Roberto Chinnici       Sun Microsystems
Anish Karmarkar        Oracle
Amelia Lewis           TIBCO
Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
Bijan Parsia           University of Maryland MIND Lab
Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.
Glen Daniels           Sonic Software
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda
1.  Assign scribe.  (Jerry Thrasher)
2.  Approval of minutes:
3.  Review of Action items.  Editorial actions 
4.  Administrivia
5.  New (non-LC) Issues. 
6.  Last Call Issues, 
7.  Media Type Description, Last Call status
8.  Issue LC5f: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance
issues (f)
9. Issue LC29b: Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD (b)
    Issue LC18: Relationship between Features and SOAP Modules
10. Issue LC29d: Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD (d)
11. Issue LC19: Fault Component Re-usable Across Interfaces 
12. Issue LC20: Feature Composition Edge Cases 
13. Issue LC21: Multipart Style and {direction}=out 
14. Issue LC22: URI Style and SOAP Response Pattern 
15. Issue LC23: Elaborate: Cannot be Serialized as XML 1.0 
16. Issue LC24: "ad:mustUnderstand" - ?? 
17. Issue LC25: What is a feature-binding? 
18. Issue LC26: wsdlLocation on the chopping block ? 
19. Issue LC27: Property Composition Edge Cases 
20. Issue LC28: HTTP Transfer Coding and 1.0
21. Issue LC47: Issue: describing the HTTP error text for faults
22. Issue LC48b: XMLP Review of WSDL 2.0 Part 2 LC WD (b) 
23. Issue LC48d: XMLP Review of WSDL 2.0 Part 2 LC WD (d) 
24. Issue LC49: Clarify whether Parts 2 & 3 MUST be supported 
25. Issue LC50: Message Exchange Patterns -- p2c and/or p2e 
26. Issue LC52a: Last call review comments (a) 
27. Issue LC52b: Last call review comments (b) 
28. Issue LC52c: Last call review comments (c) 
29. Issue LC53: Optional predefined features in Part 2 
30. Issue LC54: WSDL Last Call issue 
31. Issue LC55: binding/operation/infault|outfault? 
32. Issue LC56: Clarification for binding fault 
33. Issue LC59a: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments (a) 
34. Issue LC59c: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments (c) 
35. Issue LC59d: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments (d) 
36. Issue LC59f: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments (f) 
37. Issue LC60: Can multiple inline schemas have same targetNamespace? 
38. Issue LC61a: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (a) 
39. Issue LC61b: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (b) 
40. Issue LC61c: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (c) 
41. Issue LC61d: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (d) 
42. Issue LC61e: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (e) 
43. Issue LC61f: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (f) 
44. Issue LC62a: issues with wsdl:endpoint@address (a) 
45. Issue LC62b: issues with wsdl:endpoint@address (b) 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2.  Approval of minutes (corrected version): Oct 7 Telcon. Done
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3.  Review of Action items.  Editorial actions.

2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema TF going.

            Status: Pending

2004-09-02: Bijan to create stylesheet to generate a table of components
and properties.

            Status: 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.

            Status: 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.

            Status: Pending

2004-09-16: Hugo to get a URI to use for DTD example in Appendix E.1
(LC38)

            Status: Pending

2004-09-16: Glen to CC Asir on mail to Marc re: SOAP modules and
features (LC18, LC29b)

            Status: Pending

2004-09-30: Marsh to ask Glen about how LC9 is going.

            Status: Pending

2004-09-30: Working Group to review Media Type note in preparation for
LC vote next week.

            Status: Done

2004-09-30: Arthur to add Z notation to Part 1.

            Status: In Process (incrementally)

		Discussion: 
                Arthur: Current plan is to use two separate documents
(instead of
		        something like javascript....questions if
javascript is an
                        acceptable method for publication)

		Hugo:  Javascript would be acceptable, as long as each
"version" could
		       be separate urls (w/ different. query
parameters)...

		JMarsh:  Two separate doc's might more "universal" from
a browser support
			 of javascript standpoint.

		After discussion:

		Action Item: Arthur took AI to prototype a javascript
implementation
                             and decide on the two doc's vs javascript
method later....

		Action Item: Hugo: check with pub team to investigate
the preferred method of
                                   publishing a Rec. with multiple
viewing options...which is
                                   normative, which browser is the Gold
Standard for publishing,
                                   symbol font/encoding requirements
etc.

2004-10-07: Paul to set up test suite directory structure (Hugo assist)

            Status: Pending

2004-10-07: Primer editors to use the new terms "Web service" and
"consumer|client".

            Status: Pending (using the term client instead of consumer)
		
2004-10-07: Asir to detail binding changes or justify why they aren't
necessary (LC19)

            Status: In Process 

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
4.  Administrivia
a. November 9-11 (Sunnyvale, CA) registration [.1], logistics [.2]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34041/WSD0411/
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/04-11-f2f.htm

		Discussion:
		JMarsh: Reminder for WG members to register for the next
F2F meeting.
		
------------------------------------------------------------------
5.  New (non-LC) Issues.  Issues list [.1].
- none.

[.1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.h
tml

		Discussion:None
------------------------------------------------------------------
6.  Last Call Issues [.1].  Comments list [.2]
- TBD

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/

		Discussion:None
------------------------------------------------------------------
7.  Media Type Description [.1] Last Call status
- To do:
- final WG review complete?
- Issue: name of document (MarkN) [.2]
- vote to move to Last Call (postpone till next week)
- coordinate with XMLP (Oct 15th review, Oct 20th vote) [.3]

[.1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/media-types/xml-media-t
ypes.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
[.2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2004Oct/0000.h
tml
[.3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2004Oct/0015.htm
l
	
		Discussion: JMarsh:Any last comments/concerns on MTD
document before last call.
				(none answered)
				JMarsh: Reviewed MarkN comment [.2] 
				Proposed resolution text contained at:

 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2004Oct/0005.h
tml

				JMarsh: Call for unanimous consent to
adopt the resolution to this
				comment...(no objection)
				JMarsh: Call for unanimous consent to
move MTD document with this 
                                	resolution integrated to Last
Call....(no objection)
	
		Resolution: Adopted the resolution that was posted to
MarkN comment.
			    Voted by unanimous consent to move Media
Type Description with MarkN
                            resolution to Last Call. (pending similar
from XMLP group review)

		New Action Items: ED TODO: Anish to integrate the
resolution to the comment into the
                                document and move forward. (backup work
item to JMarsh if Anish
                                unavailable to)

------------------------------------------------------------------
8.  Issue LC5f: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance
issues (f) [.1]
- Roberto's proposal [.2]
- Postpone one more week for review, and for Roberto

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5f
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Oct/0027.html

		Discussion:

		JMarsh: Postpone one more week for review, and for
Roberto.

		Resolution: Pending
                New Action Items:none

------------------------------------------------------------------
9 . Issue LC29b: Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD (b) [.1]
Issue LC18: Relationship between Features and SOAP Modules ?? [.2]
- Awaiting Glen's action

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC29b
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC18

		Discussion:None
                Resolution:Pending
                New Action Items:None

------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Issue LC29d: Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD (d) [.1]
- DaveO's proposal [.2]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC29bd
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Sep/0061.html

		Discussion: None
                Resolution: Pending
                New Action Items:None

------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Issue LC19: Fault Component Re-usable Across Interfaces [.1]
- Awaiting Asir's action to detail binding changes

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC19

		Discussion: None
                Resolution: Pending
                New Action Items: None

------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Issue LC20: Feature Composition Edge Cases [.1]
- Need Glen's input
- Also see LC27

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC20

		Discussion: None
                Resolution: Pending
                New Action Items: None

------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Issue LC21: Multipart Style and {direction}=out [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC21
	

		Discussion:   
                
                Asir: Multipart style direction currently restricted to
IN, Why...??
		      Proposal to resolve included with the comment.
                      (remove direction restriction language phrase: see
comment text [.1])

		JMarsh: Anybody remember why we restricted to IN
directions only.

		Arthur/Asir: Maybe just a simple editorial bug in the
spec?

		JMarsh: Restriction based on the HTTP 1.1 binding
restrictions?

		Discussion about need/use multipart style for OUT
messages
                (file upload, query parameters, image returns etc.)and
if this
                restriction is needed.

		Asir/Hugh: Style constraints may not be granular
enough..

		Asir: Part 1:  2.4.1.1 states the style applies to all.

		Dbooth: That may be a general statement and specific
styles may put
		        further restrictions....

		Asir: If that's true...need to add a statment like:  The
Style property
                      may constrain both input and output, however a
particular style may
                      constrain only one direction. ...Agreed....Add Ed
TODO for Part 1...

		Further discussion of the use for output direction......

		JMarsh: As a WSDL consumer, is knowing this limitation
going to make a
                        difference...??

		Hugo: Helps to know what binding to use for a consumer
or to
                      "prepare" or design to receive this ....

		Jmarsh: Is there a need for independent style
restrictions (IN and OUT)?

		Arthur/Asir...yes.

		Jmarsh: Suggest either leave style at the operation
level and create a
                        Multi-Part IN and Out Style (can have a list of
styles that produce
                        a Union of constraints).....or move style to the
message reference
                        level (large change/risk??)

		Arthur: Need to make sure the style constraints don't
(aren't allowed to)
                        result in a null set.

		JMarsh: Suggest separating Multipart style to both IN
and OUT...

		Hugo: Might the "better" (not necessarily easier) to
apply the style
                      property to the message reference level instead of
patching this
                      specific style?  Is this same issue going to apply
to other style
                      constraint definitions.??

		Suggests the ability to put style constraints on BOTH
operation level and
                message reference level..

		JMarsh: Is this really necessary? e.g. URI style on
OUT??

		Arthur: Are we confusing IN/OUT vs Request/Response
these aren't
                        necessarily equal?

		JMarsh: Summary of Hugo's proposal: Push style to the
message reference
                        level for granularity and have "global" default
at the operation level.

		Dbooth: Do we really need to have style properties at
the operation level
                        (reduces the default
scoping/composition/override problem)?

		Discussion ....resulting in the dropping of the
Multipart IN and Multipart OUT option..

		Asir: Request review of options we are considering.

		JMarsh:Options for Straw Poll.

			1. Keep style properties on both components.
Add text to merge them when
                           a processor interprets the component model.

			2. Syntactic default.  Move style properties
from operation to message
                           component, change the name to styleDefault,
single style property on
                           message reference component.

			3. Move style property completely to the message
level with no
                           defaulting.

		J-Jaq Question: Can faults have style properties??
Currently NO...

		Straw Results: Option 1:1 vote, Option 2:4 votes, Option
3:3 votes.
		No objection to recording concensus on Option 2.


		Resolution: See Straw poll results above.


		New Action Items: ED TODO: 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.

				  ED TODO: Integrate the style property
changes to move the style
                                           properties from operation to
message component and add the

                                           defaulting language for the
operation component model. Part 1 and
                                           3. changes.

------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Call, Meeting Adjourned...
------------------------------------------------------------------
To be addressed in future Telecons...
------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Issue LC22: URI Style and SOAP Response Pattern [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC22
------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Issue LC23: Elaborate: Cannot be Serialized as XML 1.0 [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC23
------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Issue LC24: "ad:mustUnderstand" - ?? [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC24
------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Issue LC25: What is a feature-binding? [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC25
------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Issue LC26: wsdlLocation on the chopping block ? [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC26
------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Issue LC27: Property Composition Edge Cases [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC27
------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Issue LC28: HTTP Transfer Coding and 1.0 [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC28
------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Issue LC47: Issue: describing the HTTP error text for
faults [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC47
------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Issue LC48b: XMLP Review of WSDL 2.0 Part 2 LC WD (b) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC48b
------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Issue LC48d: XMLP Review of WSDL 2.0 Part 2 LC WD (d) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC48d
------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Issue LC49: Clarify whether Parts 2 & 3 MUST be supported [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC49
------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Issue LC50: Message Exchange Patterns -- p2c and/or p2e [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC50
------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Issue LC52a: Last call review comments (a) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC52a
------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Issue LC52b: Last call review comments (b) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC52b
------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Issue LC52c: Last call review comments (c) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC52c
------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Issue LC53: Optional predefined features in Part 2 [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC53
------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Issue LC54: WSDL Last Call issue [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC54
------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Issue LC55: binding/operation/infault|outfault? [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC55
------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Issue LC56: Clarification for binding fault  [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC56
------------------------------------------------------------------
33. Issue LC59a: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments (a) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC59a
------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Issue LC59c: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments (c) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC59c
------------------------------------------------------------------
35. Issue LC59d: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments (d) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC59d
------------------------------------------------------------------
36. Issue LC59f: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments (f) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC59f
------------------------------------------------------------------
37. Issue LC60: Can multiple inline schemas have same
targetNamespace? [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC60
------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Issue LC61a: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (a) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC61a
------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Issue LC61b: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (b) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC61b
------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Issue LC61c: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (c) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC61c
------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Issue LC61d: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (d) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC61d
------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Issue LC61e: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (e) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC61e
------------------------------------------------------------------
43. Issue LC61f: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (f) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC61f
------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Issue LC62a: issues with wsdl:endpoint@address (a) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC62a
------------------------------------------------------------------
45. Issue LC62b: issues with wsdl:endpoint@address (b) [.1]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC62b
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hold for future meetings
------------------------------------------------------------------
46. @compatibleWith proposal (DaveO)
- Discussed at FTF [.1], with no resolution
- DaveO to post slides or proposal summary?

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Aug/0056.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
47. SOAP 1.1 Binding
- First draft [.1]
- Modified Part 3 with soap:version [.2]
- Modified Schema for SOAP in WSDL 2.0 [.3]

[.1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-soap11-bi
nding.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
[.2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/mod-wsdl20-bindi
ngs.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
[.3]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/mod-wsdl20-soap.
xsd

------------------------------------------------------------------
48. 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
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2004 20:31:31 GMT

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