See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: asir
Marsh: Rebecca leaves the WG
RESOLUTION:
Approved Nov 3rd minutes -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Nov/att-0009/20051103-ws-desc-minutes.html
... Approved Nov 10-11 F2F minutes and summary at,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Nov/att-0036/20051110-ws-desc-minutes.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Nov/att-0036/20051111-ws-desc-minutes.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Nov/0036.html
? 2005-07-21: pauld to write a proposal for a working group
report for requirements for schema evolution
following closure of LC124
? 2005-10-20: Kendall to contact DAWG to ask for contribution to
test suite, due 2005-10-27.
DONE [.5] 2005-11-10: Hugo to fix language "Binding component assigns
quoted string" in SOAP 1.1 binding, due 2005-11-16.
? 2005-11-10: Hugo will start adding assertions to Part 2.
? 2005-11-10: Marsh to take the IRI issue to the CG, due
2005-11-16.
DONE [.3] 2005-11-10: Glen to write a proposal toward LC362, due 2005-11-16.
DONE [.6] 2005-11-10: Paul to write to the DAWG re: binding operation
twice, due 2005-11-16.
DONE [.4] 2005-11-11: Jonathan to record the issue formally to the issues
list with the resolution recorded, due 2005-11-16.
? 2005-11-11: Arthur to construct instructions sheet, and assign
sections for each member of the group to insert
assertion markup, due 2005-11-16.
Current Editorial Action Items
? 2005-07-21: Arthur to add stable identifiers for each
assertion, due 2005-09-26.
Note: Editorial AIs associated with LC issues recorded at [.2].
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/actions_owner.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Nov/0022.html
[.4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/#LC363
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Nov/0046.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Nov/0047.html
RESOLUTION: adopt SOAP 1.1 Binding editorial changes proposed by Hugo at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Nov/0046.html
January meeting proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Nov/0001.html)
Feb meeting (Cannes) draft schedule available (http://www.w3.org/2005/10/tp6groups.html)
Jonathan: proposes cancelling
telecon next week (Thanksgiving week)
... Christmas break schedule - cancel conference calls on Dec
12th and 29th
... we may cancel others if there aren't any agenda items
<Jonathan_Marsh> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/actions.html
Jonathan: there are few outstanding editorial action items
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to work on the remaining editorial action items [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/17-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
Jonathan: should we worry about the table formatting issue?
Sanjiva: need some editorial adjustments to the table
Hugo: am OK if there is a better table
Jonathan: this is strictly editorial adjustment
<scribe> ACTION: Sanjiva to propose a new table format [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/17-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
Jonathan: editors will complete
the editorial actions by end of this week, drafts are open for
review until Wed next week
... proposes a roll call vote
Jeff: agrees
Hugo: we should talk about the exit criteria
Jonathan: lets discuss after the
vote
... shall we go to CR next wed if there aren't any known red
flags?
<kendallclark> It was Alex Tribek from my computer. Sorry.
Aye: SAP, Sonic, Sun, BT, Canon, W3C, University of Maryland (Mindlab), Macromedia, Oracle, DERI, TIBCO, IBM, Microsoft, WSO2
Nay: 0
Abstain: 0
No. of Years = 3.9
<sanjiva> hats off to the chair and the group!
<kendallclark> or XQuery... brutal.
<Jonathan_Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to add link to test coverage page from our web site [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/17-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
RESOLUTION: request the Director to advance WSDL drafts as CR drafts
<Arthur> 2002/ws/desc/test-suite/test-suite-coverage-summary.xml
<Jonathan_Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to debug/improve test coverage page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/17-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
Arthur: The test suite summary table shows the coverage for each element and attribute of the WSDL 2.0 schema. We need complete coverage, so rows with 0 test case (red) require a test case. I am asking the WG members to contribute test cases for the red rows.
... In addition, we'll compile a list of assertions that specify conditions that documents must satisfy, but that can't be checked by the WSDL schema. I haven't generated the list of assertions or the coverage yet. However, when I do, we should have at least one test case for each assertion. The test case should violate its assertion (but be valid wrt to the WSDL schema).
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to modify the style sheets to eliminate the assertions table from the CR drafts [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/17-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Nov/0036.html
Hugo: points out three
things
... First, SOAP 1.1 Binding is a working group note. We may not
be able to publish this as a CR draft. We need a clear status
section that explains this
Jonathan: this is about publishing as CR and then publishing as a note
Hugo: not sure if the process prohibits this practice
Jonathan: chair and staff contact to discuss in detail
Hugo: Second, did any of the OASIS group complete a formal review of WSDL last call drafts
Jonthan: didn't receive any formal comments
<sanjiva> FYI we are implementing the HTTP binding ... not sure whether it'll be *all* of it but certainly the bulk of it
Hugo: Third, we'll be asked what do you mean by interoperable implementations. We should document our intentions clearly
Arthur: messages, sequence of messages (testing of meps)
Hugo: will a validator help us exit CR?
Jonathan: in addition to a
validator, we need implementations that produce and consume
messages that conform to WSDL
... did we discuss required vs. optional?
... we don't have different criteria for required and optional
features
Hugo: we are aiming for a lower bar
Jonathan: is worried about HTTP binding
Hugo: on the second day of the
F2F, we discussed this question. We have some folks interested
in HTTP binding
... does SOAP binding depend on HTTP binding? We ended up not
marking HTTP binding at risk
Jonathan: it may take until mid
Dec to go to CR
... we should be focusing on CR implementation, test suite and
execute on the CR related administrative work
<sanjiva> Can someone let me know who else is planning on implementing the HTTP binding please?
<sanjiva> (I'd like to compare notes etc.)
<kendallclark> FWIW, Bijan was in Manchester this week interviewing for a job at the Uni.
<kendallclark> yep
Jacek: is preparing the list of issues and producing the mapping table
<sanjiva> bye