W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2005

RE: Agenda, 21-22 April 2005 WS Desc FTF, Mountain View

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:30:44 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0F0B98B9@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I just posted a proposal for lc54.  Can we add to the agenda for
Thursday?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:52 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Agenda, 21-22 April 2005 WS Desc FTF, Mountain View
> 
> 
> Logistics [1] and dial-in details [2]
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/Logistics-2005-04-21.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Apr/0023.html
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thursday 21 April
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 08:00 Check-in and vehicle registration
> 
> 09:00 Opening formalities
>     a. Introductions & logistics
>     b. Assign scribes:
>        Youenn Fablet, Umit Yalcinalp, Jean-Jacques Moreau,
>        Rebecca Bergersen, Anish Karmarkar, Jeff Mischkinsky,
>        Charlton Barreto, Arthur Ryman, Asir Vedamuthu, Amy Lewis
>     c. Action Item [3] Review:
>        ?* 2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith proposal
>                       using an extension namespace. (LC54),
>                       due 2005-04-13.
>        ?* 2004-11-10: Glen will post an e-mail describing the
compromise
>                       proposal on formal objections, due 2005-04-11.
>        ?* 2004-11-10: Sanjiva will write up this proposal and email it
>                       to the list as a response to the objection,
>                       due 2005-04-20.
>        ?* 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the test suite for
>                       the purpose of interoperability testing,
>                       due 2005-04-13.
>        ?* 2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specfic text for
>                       the editors (LC18), due 2005-04-13.
>        ?* 2005-03-10: Bijan will look at item Editors to move App C to
>                       RDF Mapping spec to see if it is still relavant,
>                       due 2005-04-13.
>        ?* 2005-03-24: Roberto to draft proposal to split HTTP binding
>                       into 3 bindings, due 2005-04-20.
>        ?* 2005-03-31: Paul to raise issue for extensibility/versioning
>                       for wsdl using schema 1.0, due 2005-04-13.
>         ? 2005-03-31: Marsh to take on (or recommend closing) Bijan's
AI
>                       to produce a component/property table via XSLT,
>                       due 2005-04-28.
>        ?* 2005-03-31: Kevin to fix editorial POST/GET and safety
edits,
>                       due 2005-04-13.
>      DONE 2005-04-14: Marsh to put RDF mapping on the agenda for next
>                       week, due 2005-04-15.
>        ?* 2005-04-14: Arthur to evaluate text from Amy on
>                       schemaLocation, due 2005-04-21.
>        ?* 2005-04-14: DaveO to summarize LC77a options, due
2005-04-21.
>        ?* 2005-04-14: Arthur to present a new proposal for LC99,
>                       due 2005-04-21.
> 
>  [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
> 
> 09:30 Primer [4] next steps
> 
>  [4]
>
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.ht
> ml
> 
> 09:45 WSDL Schedule
>     - Dependency from WS-Addressing
>     - Dependency from WS-Chor
>     - Repub to sync with Primer?
>     - Raise issue on namespace document (RDDL)? [5]
> 
>  [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0086.html
> 
> 10:00 RDF Mapping update (if applicable)
> 
> 10:05 Common schema structures [6] (PaulD)
> 
>  [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0025.html
> 
> 10:15 Media Type Description Note
>     - Issues [7]
>     - Larry's response to Issue 268 [8]
>     - Joe Fialli has three comments [9]
>     - I18N re-review [10]
>     - Pub plan?
> 
>  [7] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#detailList
>  [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0063.html
>  [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Mar/0017.html
> [10]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2005Mar/0015.html
> 
> 10:40 Break
> 
> 11:00 Issue LC74a: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (a) [11]
>     - URI vs. IRI
>     - Proposal [12]
>     - xs:anyURI issue? (Asir) [13]
>     - Amended proposal (Jonathan) [14]
> 
> [11] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC74a
> [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0044.html
> [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0054.html
> [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0057.html
> 
> 11:15 RPC issues
>     - Issue LC75g: RPC should allow element wildcards [15]
>       + Proposal (Roberto) [16]
>     - Issue LC75f: RPC Allow extension attributes on RPC local element
>                    children [17]
>     - Issue LC118: New Issue RPC Style (and proposed fix) [18]
> 
> [15] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75g
> [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0038.html
> [17] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75f
> [18] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC118
> 
> 12:00 Lunch
> 
> 13:00 Import issues
>     - Issue LC120: Contradictions regarding transitivity of
>                    wsdl:import [19]
> 	 + Thread [20]
>     - Issue LC89m: Clarify "directly include" [21]
>     - Issue LC96: wsdl:import semantics is different from xs:import
[22]
>     - Arthur's import test cases [23]
>     - Issue LC74: Idle question [24]
>     - Issue LC75w: Allow non-dereferencable includes [25]
>     - Issue LC116: Is schemaLocation Required When Importing
>                    Inline Schemas? [26]
>     - Issue LC59d: Clarify wsdlLocation [27]
> 
> [19] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC120
> [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0059.html
> [21] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89m
> [22] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC96
> [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Apr/0028.html
> [24] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC74
> [25] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75w
> [26] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC116
> [27] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC59d
> 
> 15:00 Break
> 
> 15:20 Component issues
>     - Issue LC99: Message Reference Component is Underspecified [28]
>       + Proposal (Arthur) [29]
>     - Issue LC80: Extension Components are not Described [30]
>       + Proposal (Arthur) [31]
>     - Issue LC59e: Clarify serialization [32]
>     - Issue LC75m: Inconsistent value for {operation reference} [33]
>     - Issue LC89f: Strengthen conformance re: syntax [34]
> 
> [28] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC99
> [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0115.html
> [30] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC80
> [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0056.html
> [32] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC59e
> [33] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75m
> [34] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89f
> 
> 17:30 Adjourn
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Friday 22 April
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 09:00 Issue LC54: WSDL Last Call issue [40]
>     - Awaiting DaveO's further action to cast @compatibleWith as an
>       extension
> 
> [40] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC54
> 
> 09:30 HTTP
>     - Issue LC77a: Namespaced elements and urlformencoded [41]
>       + "Serialization as 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded' does
>         not ... explain how namespaced elements are to be serialized."
>       + Option 1: Status quo (broken?) (DaveO) [42]
>       + Option 2: Ignore namespace prefix (DaveO) [42]
>       + Option 3: Serialize QName (DaveO) [42]
>       + Option 4: Disallow qualified elements (Asir) [43]
>       + Option 5: Serialize namespace names (Hugo) [44]
>       + Other options from DaveO (TBD)
>     - Issue LC110: WSDL 2.0 Part3, Sec. 3.4 [45]
> 
> [41] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC77a
> [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0005.html
> [43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0032.html
> [44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0050.html
> [45] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC110
> 
> 10:30 Break
> 
> 10:50 MEP issues
>     - Issue LC76a: MEPs should support addressing mechanism [46]
>     - Issue LC76b: Define "propogate" [47]
>     - Issue LC79: Make sure in-only mep is supported in wsdl
>                   soap12 binding [48]
>     - Issue LC102: What is the SOAP MEP for In-only [49]
>     - Issue LC114: In-Multi-Out MEP [was "WSDL 2.0 specification"]
[50]
> 
> [46] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76a
> [47] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76b
> [48] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC79
> [49] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC102
> [50] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC114
> 
> 12:00 Lunch
> 
> 13:00 F&P issues
>     - Issue LC59f: Support compositors [51]
>     - Issue LC89d: Disabling a feature on a specific operation [52]
>     - Issue LC89e: Properties are runtime and shouldn't be in WSDL
[53]
> 
> [51] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC59f
> [52] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89d
> [53] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89e
> 
> 15:00 Break
> 
> 15:20 Schema-related issues
>     - Issue LC62a: issues with wsdl:endpoint@address (a) [54]
>     - Issue LC89a: Clarify schema validity conformance requirement
[55]
>     - Issue LC89h: Use XML Schema, not pseudo-schema [56]
>     - Issue LC100: The WSDL 2.0 XSD for Root Element is Too Loose [57]
>     - Issue LC117: Problem with Service References:
elementFormDefault=
>                    "qualified" prevents restriction [58]
> 
> [54] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC62a
> [55] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89a
> [56] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89h
> [57] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC100
> [58] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC117
> 
> 16:30 Quick survey of remaining issues [59]
>     - Issue LC52c: Last call review comments (c)
>     - Issue LC61c: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (c)
>     - Issue LC62b: issues with wsdl:endpoint@address (b)
>     - Issue LC64: URI References for Schema Components
>     - Issue LC71: default interface/operation/@pattern
>     - Issue LC72: Faults that are not described in WSDL?
>     - Issue LC74b: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (b)
>     - Issue LC74c: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (c)
>     - Issue LC75c: Remove {safety} property
>     - Issue LC75d: Require explicit type for each input/output?
>     - Issue LC75j: {safety} has a default, @safety doesn't
>     - Issue LC75o: Remove "if any" from Table 2-13
>     - Issue LC75p: Make address a binding-specific extension
>     - Issue LC75x: Complete or remove App D
>     - Issue LC82: Operation Name Mapping Requirement Bug
>     - Issue LC84c: Operation Name Mapping Requirement doesn't go
>                    far enough
>     - Issue LC89j: Use namespaces to avoid local-name conflicts
>     - Issue LC90: XML Schema comment on WSDL 2.0
>     - Issue LC98: {soap mep} property and SOAP 1.1 Binding
>     - Issue LC101: message level binding?
> 
> [59]
>
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html?view=normal&exper
> t=1&editorial=1&stateAgreed=1&stateDeclined=1&stateSubsumed=1
> 
> 17:30 Adjourn
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2005 00:33:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:35 GMT