W3C

Web Services Description F2F (Thursday)

21 Apr 2005

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Rebecca Bergersen, IONA Technologies
Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
Hugo Haas, W3C
Tom Jordahl, Macromedia
Anish Karmarkar, Oracle
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP
Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle
David Orchard, BEA Systems
Tony Rogers, Computer Associates
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Asir Vedamuthu, webMethods
Umit Yalcinalp, SAP
Observers
Heidi Buelow (Rogue Wave)
Phone
Ugo Corda, SeeBeyond
Youenn Fablet, Canon
Dale Moberg, Cyclone Commerce
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
Bijan Parsia, University of Maryland MIND Lab
Regrets
Charlton Barreto, webMethods
Jacek Kopecky, DERI Innsbruck at the Leopold-Franzens-Universitšt Innsbruck, Austria
Chair
JMarsh
Scribe
RebbecaB, alewis

Contents


<RebeccaB> Scribe: RebeccaB

Action item review

DONE      2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith proposal 
                      using an extension namespace. (LC54),
                      due 2005-04-13.
DONE      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.
DROPPED   2005-03-24: Roberto to draft proposal to split HTTP binding 
                      into 3 bindings, due 2005-04-20. 
DONE     2005-03-31: Paul to raise issue for extensibility/versioning 
                      for wsdl using schema 1.0, due 2005-04-13. 
IN PROCESS 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. 
DONE      2005-04-14: DaveO to summarize LC77a options, due 2005-04-21. 
DONE      2005-04-14: Arthur to present a new proposal for LC99, 
                      due 2005-04-21.

Primer

Marsh: want to go thru schedule, when WG needs to do deep read, etc...

kliu: need two weeks to finish action items on primer

dbooth: primer basically complete, no major portion incomplete

... specific little portions needing fixing

<dbooth> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/primer-todo.htm

... above is todo list

... one category needs input from others

... volunteers needed

... 1st: Sec 4.1 (Embedding XML Schema):

... unsure if got all rules correct

Arthur: will review

ACTION: arthur to review primer sec 4.1 for correctness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

dbooth: Sec 5 (More on Interfaces):

ACTION: Kevin to add inheritance example to primer sec 5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]

Kevin: will take normal one

dbooth: note about adding more MEP use cases

Kevin: need to know what to do with outbound

ACTION: Kevin to do outbound interface example in primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]

Marsh: Sec 6 (HTTP Binding Extension):

kliu: says only editorial work needed

Marsh: Sec 6.4 (Binding Operations):

kliu: "a target namespace" not really accurate

... primer issue

<dbooth> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html#more-bindings-http

marsh: need someone to send comment to comments list

ACTION: kliu will send comment to list as editorial issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]

<dbooth> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html#more-bindings-http

dbooth: Sec 6.6 (HTTP Binding Extension):

ACTION: Hugo to check for correctness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]

dbooth: Sec 7.1 Extensibility:

... check scoping to make sure got all right

ACTION: GlenD to check scoping references [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]

<dbooth> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html#adv-extensibility

<dbooth> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html#adv-service-references

dbooth: Sec 7.9 (Service References):

... schema needs checking

<dbooth> Actually the location of Arthur's ednote is http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html#reservationList

Arthur: in app namespace can't restrict something from WSDL namespace so cvan't specify binding namespace

... top level can be qualified but nested levels not

... as work-around

... service references are broken

Marsh: lc 117 needs fixing

Roberto: editorial in primer

Arthur: will take section of primer and eliminate broken part

dbooth: may make issue

marsh: like to publish as working draft of primer and get in synch

dbooth: better to publish with problem

ACTION: kliu to note issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action07]

<dbooth> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html#reservationDetails_HTTP

<dbooth> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html#reservationList_HTTP_GET

dbooth: examples missing type attribute from binding

... unsure of dorchards intent with these examples

... asking kevin to ping dorchard

hugo: http straight-forward example

ACTION: hugo fix type thing and look at rest for consistency in DaveO's examples at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html#reservationDetails_HTTP and http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html#reservationList_HTTP_GET [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action08]

<dbooth> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html#adv-multiple-inline-schemas

marsh: Sec 7.10 Importing Schemas:

... wait until we finish - work on this PM

... leave ednote in there until solve LC116

dbooth: everything else just editorial

marsh: two weeks action items finished. Then need two weeks for reviewing and feedback

... at least six weeks before we have doc ready for LC

Marsh: primer won't be holding back other specs

dbooth: people should start reading it now

Marsh: ignore typos; dbooth: please report tytpos

Marsh: please review in next four week

Marsh: plan on primer - review primer in four weeks

... synch with other specs

WSDL schedule

Marsh: completely missed new schedule

... two specs dependent on us - ws-addressing, ws-choreography

... we have 55 LC issues to be addressed; most biggies done

Marsh: will take until next F2F to complete

short discussion on connectivity probles in conference room

Marsh: plan of June to have publication for LC

3 week) LC, exiting in July and try to go for CR in September

<sanjiva> how many impls do we expect to have around to meet CR?

TomJ: ... discussion.. of schedule

hugo: have to make sure we deliver in finitwe amount of time

hugo: if don't meet CR by end of year, I'll probably not recommend continuation

... we should try very hard to reach CR in September

... director will ask "well what about this?"

asir: suggest not accepting any more new features

sanjiva: agree stop accepting issues

... try to go to CR before August break

<jjm> +1

... how many implementation do we need?

Marsh: generally two

sanjiva: Apache is one

asir: one in WebMethods

alewis: Tibco dooing one

... are we allowed to stop accepting issues?

<jjm> jjm: Canon doing one

Marsh: will insitute policy of no more substantive issues during this LC period

... save 'em up 'til later

... try to go to CR before August holifday, which will save us six weeks

... we got heat for not having heartbeat pub

<sanjiva> The Apache impl (the one in Axis2) will be done by/in August I'm sure .. so if Canon gets their one done too then we are in business.

... operations namemapping need update

Marsh: still processing issues - here's progress to date

... propose we re pub part 0, 1 2 in two weeks

<sanjiva> +1 to repub te docs

... as they are today

Marsh: vote to repub doc by end of next week

<Roberto> ping

RESOLUTION: repub doc by end of next week

<sanjiva> hello, anyone there?

RESOLUTION: repub doc by end of next week

<Marsh> Proposal: Put RDDL at the end of the WSDL-defined namespaces only.

RESOLUTION: repub specs 1,2,3 by end of next week

<sanjiva> The current text reads "Note that it is RECOMMENDED that the value of the targetNamespace AII ... and that it resolves to a document which provides service description information for that namespace."

<sanjiva> I'd like to add a phrase at the end like this: ", for example, a RDDL document."

Dorchard: advantage of RDDL is it satisfies both humans and machines

... can define schemas, version, roles

... machines can do so also using xlink attributes

Marsh: we went thru pain in ws-addressing because of new dated versions

TomJ: so RDDL processor can handle that?

dbooth: fragment identifier a little bogus - on dereference, frag ID may not be inside doc

... another deref needed

<sanjiva> While I agree the RDDL processor is indeed mythical at this time, it seems like a pragmatic solution which could be very useful if/when RDDL processors become real. I see it as a "why not?" thing ..

<sanjiva> It could help in the future and it certainly does not hurt us at *all* right now

sanjiva: agree RDDL processor largely mythical

... but no harm in using

Marsh: W3C webMaster decision.

... marsh worried about promoting single format

Arthur: we're not talking about modifying spec

... we want to put RDDL doc to coolect everyrthing for our namespace.

<asir> +1 to Jonathan's proposal

... thing we should have namespace, not bunch of @ signs

... think using RDDL is a good idea

marsh: do we want to have policy as we publish errata with dated versions of our schema?

... latest + dated

TomJ: agree

Roberto: dated spec in addition to dated schema?

Marsh: in end, single namespace, point back to dated versio of spec.

... we can add other links as we desire

Marsh: we resolve fix on errata, it is not normative part so can't call recommendation

... then we batch up and publish 2nd edition

Arthur: let's discuss later, when we are actually publishing errata

ACTION: hugo to establish RDDL doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action09]

Marsh: no resources for RDF Mapping update

... postponed

asir: fair to say no resources, no demand?

Marsh: just going to postpone until additional editors found

pauld: my company interested in this so I'll look for resources within

uyalcina: should remove section from primer

Marsh: will yank dangling references from primer when go to LC

Common schema structures [6] (PaulD)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0025.html

Marsh: put forward 2 alternatives: publish as note; 2: publish several times, get comments - must push out timeline

pauld: we publish as note, ask for comments,

pauld: would help me if we could publish something

Marsh: publish sometghing soon; put in comments about publishing more in future after comment period

asir: other vendors willing to support best practices primer doc?

pauld: thought there would be value

Marsh: if it proves its utility, folks might ask for WG to finish or improive the work

Arthur: targeting specific programming langs

pauld: no

arthur: use code attributes for doing accurate roundtrip

pauld: use dictionary with index

glend: we did this

Marsh: 1) let paul know whetgher can create draft and we will review and publish as note

... any objections?

... not hearing any objections

kliu: put contents in note format?

pauld: will put changes, additions, then put out for review in WG

Marsh: pauld will craft, publish to WG for review and publication as note

ACTION: pauld to craft, publish to WG for review and publication as note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action10]

(now 10:40)

break until 11:00

Marsh: continuing meeting...

Marsh: dorchard start with MEP stuff, when dorchard gets here LC 51

Media Type Description Note

Marsh: Umit's proposal from last Friday

<uyalcina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0090.html

... comment from Sun - annotate types or elements and which is better for generated code

uyalcina summarizes - allowing attr on both elements and types

... in order to recognize, needs to be on complex type

... JAXB can't do anything with it since it generates properties from simple type

glend: they're broken

... can't use type for type

uyalcina: only concern complex name types - for other types, ok

uyalcina: comlex type that's named keeps them from inferring things from i

anish: asking for help for supporting tools

uyalcina: q is to enable only static binding - we should recommend action

misleading) example

misleading) example

sorry - I *hate* this interface! It keeps chopping off half of my input!

discussion of text in proposal

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0090.html

GlenD: java binding tools have a problem with this usage.

... shouldn't use SHOULD

... would feel better saying it more directly

... there are certain tools that don't have easy time using this case,

... so they shouldn't use this case

... if problem more general then we should further examine syntax

... we need to understand what problem is

... what is it about this case that makes it hard?

Roberto: can't generate class for each element

... have to for type, not for each element

anish: would you be happyu if we make it a note?

GlenD: I'm not OK with confusing wording or if it is about specific problem

Marsh: Glen's case is that we should outlaw cases that allow those toolks to screw up

GlenD: if really generic problem that makes mapping to 3GL or 4GL tools, then we should

... examine problem

uyalcina: they can happily do mapping but cannot do static mapping

Marsh: we're wordsmithing...

anish: I'll talk with Umit offline but don't like the way it's stated

... could conclude that using it on elemnts is never recommended

uyalcina: disagree

Marsh: would anish or glen talke crack at rewording it?

anish: yes

GlenD: yes

uyalcina: don't just cull out JAXB

Hugo: allen wanted to tone down "should"

Allen: no - just want to say here why we're doing it this way

ulyacina: any objection to example?

GlenD: like to see example of use on element as well as type

ulyacina: Henry never formally accepted resolution

... problem?

ACTION: Hugo to take action to check with Henry if accept our resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action11]

anish: did we address Larry's final comment?

... we haven't done that

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0063.html

Marsh: March 63

Marsh: we're urging them to use care when using wildcards

Marsh: will come back to this after lunch

Marsh: believe we have approval from XMLP WG

ACTION: editors incorporate Larry's changes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action12]

Topic 74A

74A

Marsh: global search and replace on IRI

Marsh: IRIs allow additional charfacters

TomJ: what are ramifications if we don't do globval search and replace?

hugo: if we say yes do we need to change properties - URI style becomes IRI style, etc.

... discussion on what spec talks about IRIs, URIs, etc

asir: nobody is enforcing relationship IRIs, URIs

Marsh: URIs fuzzy - maybe we should specify targetnamespace must be ASCII

<anish> test

hugo: minimum we update 3986 to 3987

... if someone wants to use IRI they will be able to

<youenn> +1 for IRI

Marsh: strawpoll: 1- update doc to use IRI as accurately as possible

... result - 13

... stick with term URI or localize reference to where it doesn't impact interface?

... result - 1

Marsh: hugo proposed global search and replace.

... I've found places where that is problematic

... let's go through each one

<TomJ> I think that changing URI to IRI will recduce readability of our spec and is not needed

... suggest no change for URI in appendix E

Hugo: sure

<TomJ> I would much rather just change the RFC reference and use URI througout the spec

Marsh: where we have "instance" of URI, we souldn't change that

Marsh: side effect - URI style to IRI style

... in adjunct spec

Roberto: -provides example where IRI style is not URI style

ACTION: hugo look at whether rename URI style to IRI style [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action13]

hugo: change feature attribute to IRI then problem with SOAP which uses URIs

Roberto: in syntax should change name of attribute

<sanjiva> -1 to changing the name of attributes from @uri to @iri!!!!

<sanjiva> argh; that would stink

hugo: we have abstracted SOAP module from soap 1.2, nothing prevents us from having IRI as identifier and say in SOAP 1.2 it;s just an IRI

... change 1.2 to say IRI

<Roberto> or change it to "name" or "id"

Arthur: use "name"

... "name" is an NCName; on interface it's a QName

... talking about the component model

GlenD: thought we had moved to reference

... discussion on what to change name to ...

<Marsh> chad, new vote

<chad> new poll

<Marsh> Option 1: "uri"

<Marsh> chad, Option 1: "uri"

<pauld> option 9: "voodoo"

<Marsh> chad, Option 2: 'iri'

<Marsh> chad: Option 3: "ref"

<Roberto> option 3: "chad"

<Roberto> option 4: "id"

<Marsh> chad: Option 4: "identifier"

Marsh: reason we changed from "name", everywhere else it changes name component

<pauld> chad, options?

<asir> option 5: name

<asir> chad, option 5: name

<Marsh> chad: option 5: "name"

<Marsh> chad, list options?>

<Marsh> chad, list options

<pauld> chad, drop option s

<pauld> chad, list options

<dorchard> dorchard: 2,1

<alewis> vote: 2, 1, 3, 4, 5

<Arthur> vote: 2

<youenn> youenn: 2,1

<dorchard> vote: 2,1

<Allen> vote: 3,5

<TonyR> vote: 3, 4, 5, 2, 1

<asir> vote: 5, 2, 1

<Roberto> vote: 3, 4, 1, 2, 5

<RebeccaB> vote: 3,5

<TomJ> vote: 1,5,4

<pauld> vote: 2, 3

<Marsh> vote: 4, 3

<Marsh> vote: Hugo: 4, 3, 5

<uyalcina> vote: 3, 5

<jeffm> vote: 3,5

<GlenD> vote: 3, 1

<kliu> vote: 4, 2,1

<anish> chad, options

<Marsh> chad, count

<chad> Winner is option 3 - "ref"

<pauld> chad, details

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0057.html

Marsh: proposal - change URI to IRI throughout except URI attr and prop on featiures and properties and SOAP module, which becomes "ref"

... exempt appendix E where we talk about namespace URIs, section 4.11.2 in adjunct spec

... action to continue to look at IRI style/URI style

Marsh: objections?

RESOLUTION: adopted above as partial resolution to change in IRI/URI

break for lunch - resume in an hour

<Marsh> chad, bye

<Marsh> chad, hi

<alewis> Scribe: alewis

Import Issues

Marsh: goals of import and include
... import and include would work the same as schema, except chameleon include forbidden
... since then, questions over schema import and include mechanism give rise to questions of WSDL mechanism.

(issue LC120: contradictions regarding transitivity: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC120)

Marsh: Roberto suggests fixing broken schema definitions

Roberto: nobody understands it

<Roberto> ping

Amy, Arthur, Tom: well, Gudge and Amy and Arthur do ....

Marsh: what concrete proposals came out of mailing list thread?
... Arthur proposes changing names in component model to clarify
... Arthur alternatively proposes modeling import/include as directed graph of components.
... latter seems contradiction to original goal of abstracting out import/include

Dbooth: option two doesn't resolve problems. Import/include mechanism in schema different from that presented in email.

Asir: read email, objects that Arthur's example is correct.

Amy: also objects that understanding differed.

Dbooth: wants counterexample from spec

Arthur: error message from spec

Asir: example correct, error message correct; reason why depends on deep study of spec

Dbooth: want spec-based contradiction

Asir: perspective from LC96 (related to LC 120). Two separate concerns
... first concern: visibility of components in component model

<Arthur> Here is the link to src-resolve: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#src-resolve

Asir: visibility in the component model versus visibility in the document ought to be treated as separate concerns.
... in component set, visibility is complete and pervasive.

Dbooth: clarification requested: once component model constructed, syntactic visibility issues irrelevant?

Asir: correct

Dbooth: once constructed, some components visible, others not?

Asir: no, visibility is pervasive.

Arthur: concept of visibility doesn't exist in constructed component model
... refers to schema reference pasted above.
... if referring to component with QName that contains a namespace that differs from the target namespace, then there must be an corresponding import in the schema containing the reference.

Marsh: this is not about visibility, but about constructing valid references.

Arthur: this is contradiction to Dbooth's conclusion previously posted.

<Arthur> 4.2.2 The ·actual value· of the namespace [attribute] of some <import> element information item contained in the <schema> element information item of that schema document.

Arthur: this refers to QName resolution, which must complete in order to create the component model

Asir: mechanism: xs:include, brings in components from another schema document.
... mechanism: xs:import, which is also document level, more like forward declaration.
... signalling that this document will use some foreign references.
... optionally, may supply hint to help resolve location of document.

Marsh: doesn't cause components to be sucked in

Asir: correct, doesn't happen immediately, but when constructed then happens.

Umit: at the end, when constructed, there is one component model containing all components

Asir: schemaLocation optional, processor may use, may ignore, may try to use and fail; no error
... may fail later, with broken references

Arthur: we don't allow that, maybe we should?

Asir: summarizing, import merely forward declaration, importation happens apart from the statement itself.

Marsh: okay, that's how schema works. on principle that we ought to work the same (because one def confusing enough), do we need to change something?
... trying to duplicate schema and failed?
... schema wrong, and we're changing in manner inconsistent with schema?

Arthur: we are modelled on xs:import, but not the same thing, not direct re-use. Let's spell it out, and be consistent. We don't spell out now.

Marsh: we also permit partial processing.
... broken references might facilitate that.

Arthur: question is: what is a valid document?

Roberto: aligning with schema is valuable, but we can differ where the behavior is clearer.
... our include does not behave like an include.

<dbooth> +1 to Roberto

Marsh: how should include work?

Roberto: include should be completely transparent, but it isn't, because the imports are not transitive across include

<dbooth> Roberto is pointing out #6 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0129.html :

<dbooth> [[

<dbooth> 6 - not transitive over imports (A includes B imports C =>

<dbooth> A doesn't see C)

<dbooth> ]]

Roberto: this is not an include.

Amy: doesn't work like C include

Glen: lexical text include except that each document must be valid

<dbooth> No, Glen, include is a lexical include with *exceptions*

(dicsussion of examples that are valid/not valid based on how serialized)

ack

<dbooth> Amy: Rather than using wsdl-defined include, how about XInclude?

<dbooth> Jmarsh: XInclude is not very convenient.

Amy: recommend using xinclude instead

Marsh: not entirely convenient. nested description elements are problematic.
... discussion of how to do this without issues.

Arthur: how do you enforce same namespace.

Roberto, Marsh: you don't (don't need to?)

Arthur: are we willing to depend on XInclude?

Others: we don't have to; we can simply let people do so.

Marsh: XInclude is an infoset transformation. If we don't exclude the possibility, then the possibility exists.
... infoset level inclusion.

Arthur: could use entities, for that matter.

Marsh: agreed, perfectly.

Arthur: need to nail down what the XML document is.
... need strict definition in order to interchange documents.

<dbooth> +1 to Arthur's suggestion to nail down interchange format, though I think this is a separable issue from the import/include issue

Marsh: we could replace wsdl:include with nothing; could replace and recommend/endorse/explicitly permit XInclude.

Roberto: allow import to import same target namespace.

Amy: don't we permit that?

Roberto: no, we don't; specifically disallow.

Dbooth: don't we want transitive import?

Tom: but that adds to the weight of WSDL; requires understanding of XInclude

<sanjiva> +1 for getting rid of wsdl:include .. I fought hard against that when it was put in too (on the basis that modern lanuages have only one include/import mechanism and its usually import and not this textual crap)

Paul: could give examples in primer

Tom: better to use schema model for inclusion than to use XInclude.

<sanjiva> ARGH please don't recommend XInclude; we can just allow import to be used for the same N.

<dbooth> But tom, it's the choice of adopting an existing wheel or re-inventing our own.

Tom: we should use the schema model of import and include

secretary loses the thread by collapsing into helpless laughter as discussion of the manifest virtues of XML schema bubbles

Paul: why would you use include?

Arthur: include allows you to break up a very large namespace into more convenient chunks (fsvo convenient)

discussion becomes general again

Arthur: additional examples/use cases.

general purport of discussion: value of having an include mechanism

Marsh: import of same namespace is forward declaration that "this namespace is incomplete; components located elsewhere"
... how would you resolve that?

Roberto: resolve it by resolving

Marsh: but ambiguous; how combine with versions?

Paul: include attractive because it's below the infoset

Arthur: lexical include is dangerous and of less utility; cannot validate independent fragments.

<dbooth> <myNS:include wsdl:required='true' ... /> :)

<dbooth> C #include is well understood. This is a MAJOR advantage!

Paul, Roberto: fragments in many other languages do not require that the fragment be well formed

general discussion about inclusion and importation in various languages.

Tom: this is off the issue; we don't have an issue for this.

Asir: following up: submitted LC96 on behalf of schema working group.
... Schema WG says "would be nice if wsdl worked like schema, but it doesn't now, so please don't say it's like schema"

Paul: as a working group, if we don't understand import/include, how can we publish it?

<dbooth> +1 to PaulD's comment!

Tom: we have an idea, and people can understand, and we know what we intend.

Marsh: fix it so it's like schema, or change it and flag the differences.

Arthur: don't think import and include are broken; some readers have preconceptions, but that doesn't make the definition broken, just needs clarification
... remove reference to schema and say "this is how it works"

Asir: personal opinion, not schema working group opinion; would prefer to have it work same as schema, approximately

<dbooth> Amy: Tibco was unhappy the addition of wsdl:include because of its complexity. I would be happy to drop it.

amy: tibco wasn't happy to see include; wouldn't mind losing it.

Marsh: let's separate discussion: import and include
... no one seems to object to import like schema

<dbooth> "When it doubt, leave it out!" :)

Marsh: opinions differ on include, several possibilities
... no objection to import like schema? (none offered)
... options for include:
... make it work like schema

<dbooth> Options:

<dbooth> 1. Keep wsdl:include and match XML Schema behavior.

<dbooth> 2. Keep wsdl:include but define the behavior to be fully transitive.

<dbooth> 3. Drop wsdl:include, specify physical document interchange format and normally reference XInclude.

<dbooth> 4. Drop wsdl:include

Marsh: drop it completely
... make it work like an include, but not like schema include

<dbooth> 4. Drop wsdl:include and continue to be silent on physical document interchange format.

<Roberto> I think that (2) is more than just transitive.

<dbooth> yes, Roberto. Got a better shorthand?

Asir: there is no open issue on include

Amy: drop of include proposed as solution to other issues, such as LC120.

Marsh: well, let's discuss issues unrelated to include

Arthur: any QName must be imported.

Dbooth: mentions example of A imports B includes C and problems therein.

<Arthur> Proposal: add the following statement: If any component in a document refers to a component in a different namespace then there MUST be a <wsdl:import> for that other namespace in the <wsdl:decription>

Umit: let's just say "works like schema"

Roberto: well, but there may be differences

+1 to Arthur's proposal

Discussion of language in spec.

Asir: section 4.2, two sentences; second sentence unnecessary.

(chasing hyperlinks)

<Arthur> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#src-resolve

Marsh: that would replace the bulk of [something read from spec]

<Arthur> ok, we will rephrase this in terms of elements and QNames

dbooth: that is phrased as component referencing another component, not as infoset constraint.

Roberto: (sotto voce, pianissimo) agrees

dbooth: read that as a consequence of the rules of the specification rather than as a rule

Marsh: doesn't sound normative enough

<Arthur> Proposal: If a a <wsdl:description> contains a reference to a QName from another namespace, then there must be a corresponding <wsdl:import> in the <wsdl:description>

Marsh: people want to look closely at this wording, best done on mailing list

dbooth: this is an isolated section of the spec, and it's hard to find it, if checking particular parts of a spec.

<Arthur> Put a reference to the "QName Resoultion" section wherever we have a QName reference

Marsh, Tom: should be included in QName resolution.

Marsh: need more complete proposal for fixing.

Arthur: we can add this to QName resolution and add a reference to that section wherever Qname references mentioned.

Marsh: don't change 4.2?

(general discussion, apparent agreement, not clear)

Marsh: add references to qname resolution section, improve qname resolution section, and maybe massage section 4.2.

umit: remove references to transitivity.

dbooth: move transitivity discussion to note.

marsh: fix it or drop it, don't put it in a note.
... can we close LC120 as editorial; add references to qname resolution, clarify there, clarify 4.2 (drop transitivity)

<scribe> ACTION: Asir to provide modified text of section 4.2 to editors [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action14]

RESOLUTION: close LC120 as editorial; add references to qname resolution and clarify that section; use Asir's text for 4.2

dbooth: disentangle component model and lexical representation in section 4.2

<dbooth> Asir, in clarifying 4.2, I suggest making a clear distinction between infoset-level constraints and component-level constraints.

<Marsh> ACTION: Arthur to incorporate LC120 resolution, including text from Asir. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action15]

dbooth: what happened to include? postponed?

Marsh: don't have an issue, so postponed/delayed/ignored; going through existing issues.

more discussion of include issue.

Issue: LC89m

Marsh: "directly include" not useful?
... are we about to drop this section?

Asir: clarifying: namespace a wsdl imports namespace b. all imports must be replicated in b.

Arthur: if b imports other namespaces, then a must also import them.

Roberto: requires a to have internal knowledge of b.
... description of a complex import chain

Marsh: is this the issue of visibility?

Roberto: isn't there a requirement for direct imports?

discussion of visibility, mechanism of important, schema imports, and visibility

Roberto: what's in the element declarations bag?

Asir: what is imported via xs:import or inlined via xs:schema.

Arthur: those are added to the content model, without necessarily importing the schemas.

Roberto: reads text, asks if this doesn't contradict

Asir: difference between process of importing versus visibility in constructed component model.

<asir> we are talking about section 2.1.3

Arthur: when document b is imported, all components defined in that document are incorporated into the unified set of components.

dbooth: let's change from that model to a different one, with one Description component for each <description> element.

marsh: what's the difference between these issues?

asir: just different focus: wsdl native components versus non-native (schema) components.
... see section 2.1.3, part 1.
... five rules, first three are native with one set of rules; last two are non-native with different rules.

dbooth: i think that that section shows that our use of include is confusing.

<Roberto> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Description_Mapping

marsh: when i include a wsdl, the interfaces, bindings, and services are visible; the inline and imported schema elements are not.
... could remove include (amy loudly agrees)

asir: solution is to treat non-native mechanism same as native.

marsh: change fourth and fifth rows of table 2.1 (proposal one)
... drop wsdl:include (proposal two)

<dbooth> Options:

<dbooth> 1. Keep wsdl:include and fix rows 4&5 of table 2-1 to match the other rows.

<dbooth> 2. Drop wsdl:include

chad, new vote

<chad> new poll

chad, question: how to resolve issue 89m (see issues list)?

<Marsh> chad: option 1: Keep wsdl:include and fix rows 4&5 of table 2-1 to match the other rows

<Marsh> chad: option 2: Replace wsdl:include with same-namespace imports

<Marsh> option 3: status quo

<Marsh> chad: option 3: status quo

chad, list options

<asir> vote: 1

<Arthur> Proposal: drop <wsdl:import>, do not require forward declarations, only have <wsdl:include> and make loaction REQUIRED and allow it it inluced same or other namespaces

chad, option 4: redefine wsdl:include to use relax-ng-like include semantics

chad, list options

roberto: explains how relax-ng include mechanism works.

marsh: wsdl-specific smart lexical include

roberto: lexical include that strips the container after checking for match.

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask what is the benefit of a WSDL-specific include?

dbooth: what is the benefit of wsdl-specific include?

roberto: because it permits tools to be more clever.

dbooth: doesn't see benefit of doing this.

tom: would this be transitive include?

roberto: yes, of course.

chad, list options

<RebeccaB> vote: 4,1

<Marsh> chad: Option 5: Drop wsdl:include

chad, option 5: drop wsdl:include

chad, list options

<dbooth> vote: 5, 4, 1, 2, 3

discussion of what different options mean.

<pauld> vote: 5,5,5,5,5,4

<pauld> chad, list votes

<kliu> vote 1, 2

vote: 5, 4, 3

<pauld> vote: 5,4

<Allen> vote: 4,5,2

<Arthur> Option 6: drop <wsdl:import>, allow different namespace <wsdl:include>

chad, list voters

chad, list options

<Roberto> vote: 4, 1, 5, 2

<dbooth> The status quo wsdl:include is a pseudo-lexical include with exceptions for import and types.

<jjm> vote: 5,4

<dorchard> vote: 2,1

<TonyR> vote: abstain

<Arthur> chad: Option 6: drop <wsdl:import>, allow different namespace <wsdl:include>

<hugo-ms> vote: 1,2

<dbooth> vote: 5, 6,

<RebeccaB> chad: options?

<dbooth> vote: 5, 6, 4, 1, 2, 3

chad, list voters

<Marsh> vote: 1, 3

<Allen> vote: 6,4,5,2

<pauld> vote: 6, 5, 4

<RebeccaB> vote: 4,6,1,2

<pauld> chad, votes?

<TomJ> vote: 6, 4

<GlenD> vote: 1,2

<hugo-ms> vote: 1,2,6

<ugo> vote: 1

<Arthur> vote: 6, 2, 4, 1, 3

<pauld> chad, make 6 win

<jjm> chad, no cheating

chad, whack paul with a voting lever

<uyalcina> vote: 4,6,1

chad, list voters

<jeffm> chat: options?

<jeffm> chad: options?

<anish> vote: 5, 4

<dorchard> vote: 4, 2, 1, 3, 6

<jeffm> vote: 6,4,5,1

chad, count?

<chad> Question: how to resolve issue 89m (see issues list)?

<chad> Option 1: Keep wsdl:include and fix rows 4&5 of table 2-1 to match the other rows (5)

<chad> Option 2: Replace wsdl:include with same-namespace imports (0)

<chad> Option 3: status quo (0)

<chad> Option 4: redefine wsdl:include to use relax-ng-like include semantics (4)

<chad> Option 5: drop wsdl:include (4)

<chad> Option 6: drop <wsdl:import>, allow different namespace <wsdl:include> (5)

<uyalcina> vote: 4, 2, 1, 3, 6

<chad> 19 voters: alewis (5, 4, 3) , Allen (6, 4, 5, 2) , anish (5, 4) , Arthur (6, 2, 4, 1, 3) , asir (1) , dbooth (5, 6, 4, 1, 2, 3) , dorchard (4, 2, 1, 3, 6) , GlenD (1, 2) , hugo-ms (1, 2, 6) , jeffm (6, 4, 5, 1) , jjm (5, 4) , Marsh (1, 3) , pauld (6, 5, 4) , RebeccaB (4, 6, 1, 2) , Roberto (4, 1, 5, 2) , TomJ (6, 4) , TonyR () , ugo (1) , uyalcina (4, 6, 1)

<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.

<chad> Round 2: First elimination round.

<chad> Eliminating candidadates without any votes.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 2.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 3.

<chad> Round 3: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.

<chad> Tie at round 2 between 4, 5.

<chad> Tie at round 1 between 4, 5.

<chad> Tie broken randomly.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 4.

<chad> Round 4: Eliminating candidate 5.

<chad> Round 5: Eliminating candidate 1.

<chad> Candidate 6 is elected.

<chad> Winner is option 6 - drop <wsdl:import>, allow different namespace <wsdl:include>

chad, count?

<chad> Question: how to resolve issue 89m (see issues list)?

<chad> Option 1: Keep wsdl:include and fix rows 4&5 of table 2-1 to match the other rows (5)

<chad> Option 2: Replace wsdl:include with same-namespace imports (0)

<chad> Option 3: status quo (0)

<chad> Option 4: redefine wsdl:include to use relax-ng-like include semantics (4)

<chad> Option 5: drop wsdl:include (4)

<chad> Option 6: drop <wsdl:import>, allow different namespace <wsdl:include> (5)

<chad> 19 voters: alewis (5, 4, 3) , Allen (6, 4, 5, 2) , anish (5, 4) , Arthur (6, 2, 4, 1, 3) , asir (1) , dbooth (5, 6, 4, 1, 2, 3) , dorchard (4, 2, 1, 3, 6) , GlenD (1, 2) , hugo-ms (1, 2, 6) , jeffm (6, 4, 5, 1) , jjm (5, 4) , Marsh (1, 3) , pauld (6, 5, 4) , RebeccaB (4, 6, 1, 2) , Roberto (4, 1, 5, 2) , TomJ (6, 4) , TonyR () , ugo (1) , uyalcina (4, 2, 1, 3, 6)

<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.

<kliu> vote: 1, 2

<chad> Round 2: First elimination round.

<chad> Eliminating candidadates without any votes.

<asir> chad: 1, 3

<chad> Eliminating candidate 2.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 3.

<chad> Round 3: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.

<chad> Tie at round 2 between 4, 5.

<chad> Tie at round 1 between 4, 5.

<chad> Tie broken randomly.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 5.

<chad> Round 4: Eliminating candidate 1.

<chad> Round 5: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.

<chad> Tie at round 4 between 4, 6.

<chad> Candidate 6 has the fewest votes at round 3.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 6.

<chad> Candidate 4 is elected.

<chad> Winner is option 4 - redefine wsdl:include to use relax-ng-like include semantics

chad, count?

<chad> Question: how to resolve issue 89m (see issues list)?

<chad> Option 1: Keep wsdl:include and fix rows 4&5 of table 2-1 to match the other rows (6)

<chad> Option 2: Replace wsdl:include with same-namespace imports (0)

<chad> Option 3: status quo (0)

<chad> Option 4: redefine wsdl:include to use relax-ng-like include semantics (4)

<chad> Option 5: drop wsdl:include (4)

<chad> Option 6: drop <wsdl:import>, allow different namespace <wsdl:include> (5)

<chad> 20 voters: alewis (5, 4, 3) , Allen (6, 4, 5, 2) , anish (5, 4) , Arthur (6, 2, 4, 1, 3) , asir (1, 3) , dbooth (5, 6, 4, 1, 2, 3) , dorchard (4, 2, 1, 3, 6) , GlenD (1, 2) , hugo-ms (1, 2, 6) , jeffm (6, 4, 5, 1) , jjm (5, 4) , kliu (1, 2) , Marsh (1, 3) , pauld (6, 5, 4) , RebeccaB (4, 6, 1, 2) , Roberto (4, 1, 5, 2) , TomJ (6, 4) , TonyR () , ugo (1) , uyalcina (4, 2, 1, 3, 6)

<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.

<chad> Round 2: First elimination round.

<chad> Eliminating candidadates without any votes.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 2.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 3.

<chad> Round 3: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.

<chad> Tie at round 2 between 4, 5.

<chad> Tie at round 1 between 4, 5.

<chad> Tie broken randomly.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 4.

<chad> Round 4: Eliminating candidate 5.

<chad> Round 5: Eliminating candidate 6.

<chad> Candidate 1 is elected.

<chad> Winner is option 1 - Keep wsdl:include and fix rows 4&5 of table 2-1 to match the other rows

<jeffm> chad: options?

<dbooth> chad, details?

<pauld> chad, help

general irritation on the results of the vote; the working group declares a break and leaves. :-)

<Roberto> ping

<Marsh> resume

marsh: inconclusive resolution

<Roberto> chad, list options

marsh: is there anyone who can't live with each option?

chad, drop option 2

chad, drop option 3

chad, list options

chad, drop option 5

chad, list options

amy: rants about problems with xml schema include mechanism

arthur: option 6 explanation. wsdl may contain 6 top-level components, and extensions.
... each component may refer to other components. in this model, the include happens, and all inclusion is completed prior to component resolution.
... no forward references; the include mechanism simply brings the document in and the components become available.
... iri could dereference, could have caching or cataloging mechanism.

roberto: wsdl a includes b which imports schema c. what does a need to do to reference components in c?
... does this lose encapsulation?

arthur: no encapsulation; structure of an included document transparent to includer.

dorchard: is that similar to what roberto proposed?

roberto: difference is whether it's same-namespace or different.
... prefers keeping import and having a better include; feels that has better encapsulation.

discussion of nuances of combination with schema inline and import

umit: request for clarification

arthur: why are we treating xs:import differently than other imports?

tom: because those things belong to schema, not to us.

arthur: but once they are exported by schema, they are visible.

asir: only one complaint: chameleon include

amy: complains that asir is misrepresenting her position entirely.

asir: practice comes first: processors exist, they work.
... if we want to go to last call, we need to stop inventing things on the fly.

arthur: this is not on the fly; we have been discussing this for some time.

marsh: is our current position workable?

paul: where are the processors that work?
... the processors that exist do not process wsdl, they process schema.

paul, amy: our include works differently anyway.

chad, list options

arthur: we should require more overwhelming support to change anything now.

amy: objection to changing rules now.

paul: concerned about level of work, would prefer to simply drop things.

<kliu> +1 to arthur on raising the bar for changes

marsh: re-take poll, options 1, 4, 6.

<kliu> vote: 1

vote: 4, 6

<asir> vote: 1

<dorchard> vote: 4,6,1

<Roberto> vote: 4, 6

<bijan> vote: abstain

<dorchard> vote: 4,6

<Allen> vote: 6

chad, list voters

<uyalcina> vote: 1, 6

chad, close vote

<asir> vote: 1, 6

chad, new vote

<chad> new poll

<Arthur> vote: 1, 6, 4

chad, question: which of three options do we accept?

<Marsh> chad, Option 1: Keep wsdl:include and fix rows 4&5 of table 2-1 to match the other rows

<uyalcina> vote: 1, 4

<Marsh> chad, Option 4: redefine wsdl:include to use relax-ng-like include semantics

<Marsh> chad, Option 6: drop <wsdl:import>, allow different namespace <wsdl:include>

chad, list options

<Marsh> vote: 1

<Allen> vote: 6

vote: 4, 6

<Arthur> vote: 1, 6, 4

<hugo-ms> vote: 1

<asir> vote: 1, 6

<dorchard> vote: 4,6

<pauld> vote: 1, 4, 6

<kliu> vote:1

<bijan> vote: abstain

<anish> vote: 1, 4, 6

<Roberto> vote: 4, 6

<asir> vote: 1

<TomJ> vote: 1,6,4

<uyalcina> vote: 1

<TonyR> vote: abstain

<RebeccaB> vote: 4,6

chad, list voters

<jeffm> vote: 1,6,4

<GlenD> vote:1

<Marsh> chad, count

<chad> Question: which of three options do we accept?

<chad> Option 1: Keep wsdl:include and fix rows 4&5 of table 2-1 to match the other rows (11)

<chad> Option 4: redefine wsdl:include to use relax-ng-like include semantics (4)

<chad> Option 6: drop <wsdl:import>, allow different namespace <wsdl:include> (1)

<chad> 18 voters: alewis (4, 6) , Allen (6) , anish (1, 4, 6) , Arthur (1, 6, 4) , asir (1) , bijan () , dorchard (4, 6) , GlenD (1) , hugo-ms (1) , jeffm (1, 6, 4) , kliu (1) , Marsh (1) , pauld (1, 4, 6) , RebeccaB (4, 6) , Roberto (4, 6) , TomJ (1, 6, 4) , TonyR () , uyalcina (1)

<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.

<chad> Candidate 1 is elected.

<chad> Winner is option 1 - Keep wsdl:include and fix rows 4&5 of table 2-1 to match the other rows

RESOLUTION: issue 89m closed with table 2-1 to be modified as specified.

Issue LC96: wsdl import differs from xml schema import.

asir: we have agreed to align with xml schema import.

RESOLUTION: subsumed by closure of LC 120, changes to section 4.2

marsh: what about test cases? arthur: related to lc 116

Issue 74: can import/include import or include a wsdl 1.1 document?

tom: clarify: say "2.0".

<scribe> ACTION: editors to add "2.0" to document. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action16]

RESOLUTION: LC 74 closed with action to the editors.

Issue LC 75w: should we require resolution of URIs for wsdlLocation?

asir: align with xml schema: not an error

tom: objection: we require location; schema doesn't.

arthur: is a urn dereferenceable?

marsh: but if i have a catalog ....

hugo: what does schema say?

asir: not an error to fail to resolve; is error to resolve to non-schema document.

marsh: someone will take a look?

<hugo-ms> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#include_location_attribute

tom: propose removal of paragraph.
... amends proposal to remove "is not dereferenceable" clause.
... if location is dereferenceable and does not resolve to wsdl, then fault.

arthur: then it is possible to create a valid wsdl document with a completely bogus import.

questions about whether the url must be dereferenceable.

marsh: suppose we change it to "resolveable".
... remove "is not dereferenceable", leave "resolve".

<asir> It is not an error for the ·actual value· of the schemaLocation [attribute] to fail to resolve it all, in which case no corresponding inclusion is performed. It is an error for it to resolve but the rest of clause 1 above to fail to be satisfied

discussion of how xml schema does include, and why it is so complexly phrased.

hugo: i want to do cheap mirroring using multiple includes with different locations

amy: we encountered this issue before: the location attribute should not be overloaded as a catalog/failover mechanism.

marsh: how much breakage does this bring to our goal of maintaining compatibility with schema?

<Roberto> our purported compatibility with schema, I might say

marsh: can close with no action

<Marsh> ACTION: Editors Fix the "processor" language in 4.1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action17]

arthur: need to take "processor" language out

<hugo-ms> Previous discussion of this: issue 129 at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0039

marsh: second option: remove "is not dereferenceable or"
... objections to second option?
... accepted.

RESOLUTION: Issue 75w closed by directing editors to remove "is not dereferenceable or" from section 4.1.1

<scribe> ACTION: editors to remove "is not dereferenceable or" from section 4.1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action18]

<TonyR> just don't eat baklava while wearing a balaclava - honey and rosewater in the wool - sticky!!

Issue: LC 59d

<Roberto> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC59d

Choreography group seeks clarification of usage of wsdl:wsdlLocation.

Tom: agree, need clarifying text.

Marsh: this is supplied for the use of other namespaces to allow people to refer to WSDL documents.

Tom: is any of this in the primer?

Marsh: first sentence of section seven describes purpose

<Arthur> I posted the text to resolve LC116 at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0145.html

Marsh: want editors to add text?

Tom: yes, possibly, but check primer first, see if already there.

<scribe> ACTION: Tom to provide additional text to section 7, part 1, wsdlLocation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action19]

Issue: LC 116, is schemaLocation attribute required for inline schemas?

Arthur: define inline schema.
... text supplied.

amy: arthur is trying to make sure that valid documents are valid; i want to make sure that there is no wiggle room for invalid documents to be "ambiguously valid".

asir: what section does this go into.

marsh: leave it up to editors

<scribe> ACTION: editors to make sure that inline/embedded schema used consistently and defined. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action20]

discussion of term "encountered".

amy: proposes modification of the language.

roberto: does this confuse resolution with component model.

arthur: describes how component model is built, qname resolution is done.

<asir> +1 Amy's modified wording

change: so long as the inline schema has been encountered during resolution of imports and includes for the current component model.

to: so long as the inline schema has been resolved in the current component model.

RESOLUTION: LC 116 closed with action to editors to incorporate suggested text (see urls).

<scribe> ACTION: editors to incorporate text suggested for resolution of LC 116 in arthur's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0145.html as modified [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action21]

LC99

<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0135.html

<Arthur> LC99: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0135.html

Issue: LC 99, message reference property has an optional message content model.

arthur: if content model is missing, it is a non-xml type system, which seems non-obvious
... proposes that the property be required and that an additional wildcard (#other) be defined, which makes clear that another type system is in use.

marsh, tom: not a new token in the xml?

arthur: add a new value to the property without changing the xml syntax.

tom: i don't want it to be called #other, because it looks like something that could show up in the xml syntax.
... prefer to supply english sentence (marsh obliges with a clarifying sentence).

arthur: natural reaction to missing value is "null", which is incorrect in this case.

tom: i want it to look different from the stuff that goes into the wsdl.
... use different enumeration in the component model than in the syntax.

<Marsh> chad, new poll:

<Marsh> chad, new poll

<chad> new poll

<Marsh> chad, option 1: #other (Arthur's proposal)

arthur: prefers consistency.

<Marsh> chad, option 2: absent property means non-XML type system

<Marsh> chad, option 1: #other means non-XML type system(Arthur's proposal)

<Marsh> chad, option 1a: Option 1 + drop "#" to break the expectation that the enumeration is the same as the XML.

chad, list options

<Marsh> chad, Question: Issue 99 proposals

component model would contain the values: "any" "other" "element" or "none"

xml would contain "#any" and "#none" or an element.

<Marsh> vote: WG: 1a

<Marsh> chad, count

marsh: objections to adopting 1a?

<Marsh> chad, count

<pauld> vote: abstain

<pauld> chad, count

<pauld> chad, list voters

<pauld> chad, count

marsh: hurry up! hurry up!

<pauld> chad, options?

<pauld> chad: mmouse: 1a

RESOLUTION: LC 99 closed with the "other" value added to component model, all values to have octothorpe stripped in component model.

<pauld> chad, count

<chad> Question: Issue 99 proposals

<chad> Option 1: #other means non-XML type system(Arthur's proposal) (0)

<chad> Option 1a: Option 1 + drop "#" to break the expectation that the enumeration is the same as the XML. (2)

<chad> Option 2: absent property means non-XML type system (0)

<chad> 3 voters: mmouse (1a) , pauld () , WG (1a)

<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.

<chad> Candidate 1a is elected.

<chad> Winner is option 1a - Option 1 + drop "#" to break the expectation that the enumeration is the same as the XML.

<scribe> ACTION: editors to introduce "other" value to go with "any" "element" and "none" for message content model [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action22]

Issue: LC 80, extension components not described.

arthur: wsdl has open content model, allows elements and attributes from other namespaces anywhere.

<asir> My response to LC80 proposal is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0131.html

arthur: extensions may or may not contribute to component model
... may add properties to an existing component, or
... may create new components
... extensions very important to wsdl; we use them ourselves and suggest other people use them.
... we should try to specify what extensions are, so that tools can be written which are also extensible
... rules (derived by pattern recognition in existing extensions):

 

arthur is discussing rules for extensions

arthur finishes discussing characteristics of extension properties, starts on components.

arthur: each component has a qname
... each component has properties
... each component is or is not extensible.

marsh: objects that don't need qname, just need to say it has a name which is unique in a namespace.

asir: thought that there was a proposal to change all properties in part two to qname.

hugo: worried that this adds yet another mapping to an already complex model.

glen, marsh: requiring qnames to identify extension components and properties is too restrictive.

general discussion of identifiers, fragment identifiers, and so on.

discussion of how to disambiguate extensions in different namespaces but with the same name.

arthur: why not have a qname.

marsh: why have one?
... our equivalent of the localname part is not an ncname.

glen: i want to be able to refer to something outside the namespace.

arthur: web way is uri; xml way is qname.

marsh: too many identifiers, with unnecessary complexity.

roberto: why do we have this?

arthur: spec is vague; this is just a way of saying what an extension is.
... to design composable tools, need to have more rigor in defining extensions.

roberto: we have examples in part two; we don't need anything else.

arthur: component model has no formal definition of extension properties or components.

roberto: we don't need this. extensions do it; we don't need to do anything.

arthur: you can't tell from an extension name how it fits in.

marsh: no, you have to read the specification; always do.

arthur: if we don't limit the flexibility of extensions, it may be impossible to define an extensible component model.
... that may slow down adoption of extensions

glen: we don't prevent that use case; however, we also don't prevent the other case as well.
... there may be another way to write the tools, which does something based on the qnames of extension elements encountered. don't need to recommend a best practice for the keys of the lookup table.

hugo: also to avoid collisions.

amy: concerned that this leads in the direction of specifying a processor model.

glen: don't think this specifies that sort of stuff.

umit: does this include specifying fragment identifiers?

arthur: goal already existed; already in the registration that says that the extension owners need to define frag ids.
... raises issue: need frag ids for extensions in part two.

<Marsh> ACTION: Part 2 editors to define frag id extensions for soap:header, http:header, soap:module. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

asir: three components in part two, module, header, header.

glen: what's difference between properties and components?

arthur: components contain properties; properties are name-value pairs.

hugo: soap has well-defined extension semantics.

marsh: almost out of time, let's vote.

glen: like general idea, but don't like the specifics.

marsh: can ask whether to pursue or abandon.

hugo: want to know what people think may need changed.

marsh: don't like qnames.

glen: have trouble with some other things

asir: do we need to define this so strictly

glen: put it in the primer?

arthur: no, belongs in part one.

marsh: pursue, or close with no changes.

RESOLUTION: LC 80 closed with no change.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Arthur to incorporate LC120 resolution, including text from Asir. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action15]
[NEW] ACTION: arthur to review primer sec 4.1 for correctness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Asir to provide modified text of section 4.2 to editors [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action14]
[NEW] ACTION: Editors Fix the "processor" language in 4.1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action17]
[NEW] ACTION: editors incorporate Larry's changes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action12]
[NEW] ACTION: editors to add "2.0" to document. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action16]
[NEW] ACTION: editors to incorporate text suggested for resolution of LC 116 in arthur's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0145.html as modified [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action21]
[NEW] ACTION: editors to introduce "other" value to go with "any" "element" and "none" for message content model [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action22]
[NEW] ACTION: editors to make sure that inline/embedded schema used consistently and defined. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action20]
[NEW] ACTION: editors to remove "is not dereferenceable or" from section 4.1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action18]
[NEW] ACTION: GlenD to check scoping references [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: hugo fix type thing and look at rest for consistency in DaveO's examples at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html#reservationDetails_HTTP and http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html#reservationList_HTTP_GET [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: hugo look at whether rename URI style to IRI style [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action13]
[NEW] ACTION: Hugo to check for correctness [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: hugo to establish RDDL doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: Hugo to take action to check with Henry if accept our resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action11]
[NEW] ACTION: Kevin to add inheritance example to primer sec 5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Kevin to do outbound interface example in primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: kliu to note issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: kliu will send comment to list as editorial issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: pauld to craft, publish to WG for review and publication as note [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action10]
[NEW] ACTION: Tom to provide additional text to section 7, part 1, wsdlLocation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/21-ws-desc-minutes.html#action19]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.122 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/03/31 04:43:41 $