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

Agenda, 3-4 March 2005 WS Desc FTF, Boston

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:20:41 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A506A68844@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

[First draft, suggestions welcomed!]

------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday 3 March
------------------------------------------------------------------

09:00 Opening formalities
    a. Introductions & logistics
    b. Assign scribes:
       Bijan Parsia, Prasad Yendluri, Kevin Liu, Youenn Fablet, 
       Glen Daniels, Roberto Chinnici, Allen Brookes, Adi Sakala
       Umit Yalcinalp, Paul Downey, Dale Moberg, Tom Jordahl,
       Tony Rogers, Rebecca Bergersen

09:15 Alternate Schema Languages
    - Issue LC70: Pluggability of Schema Languages in WSDL [1]
      - Proposal A: "mustUnderstand" the schema language. [2]
      - Proposal B: Tighten the coupling with XML Schema.
    - Issue LC52b: Last Call Review Comments (b) [3]
    - Issue LC63: Mixing Schema Languages [4]

 [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC70
 [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Oct/0024
.html
 [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC52b
 [4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC63

10:30 Break

10:50 Conformance
    - Issue LC5f: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance
                issues (f) [5]
      - Roberto's proposal [6]
      - No final resolution from FTF, AIs to DBooth/Roberto and DaveO 
        to write up competing proposals
      - DBooth/Roberto's proposal [7]
      - Mini-TF to work on a single proposal (stalled out).  Want to see
        whether we're still waiting for an alternative proposal before
        deciding the issue.
    - Issue LC75r: Remove conformance requirement on XML Schema [8]
    - Issue LC75v: Remove "Processor Conformance" [9]

 [5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5f
 [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Oct/0027.html
 [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0099.html
 [8] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75r
 [9] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75v

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Issue 76d: First class support for headers [10]
    - DaveO's v1.2 Headers proposal from Jan FTF. [11]
    - Asir's proposal for a first-class header support, elements [12]
    - Asir's proposal for a first-class header support, types [13]
    - Asir's proposal for SOAP-specific header support [14]
    - subissue a: mandatory mustUnderstand [15]
    - subissue b: MUST if possible [15] (Editorial?)
    - subissue c: Use Schema for versioning, not SOAP headers [15]
    - subissue d: Wrapper type can't be validated [15]
    - subissue e: mismatched feature/modules [15]

 [10] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC76d
 [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0040.html
 [12]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/att-0019/first-c
lass-headers-A.html
 [13]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/att-0019/first-c
lass-headers-B.html
 [14]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/att-0094/soap-he
ader-blocks.html
 [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0009.html
 [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0018.html

15:00 Break

15:20 More "AD" issues:
    - Issue LC24: "ad:mustUnderstand" - ?? [17]
    - Issue LC53: Optional predefined features in Part 2 [18]
    - Issue LC61f: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (f) [19]

 [17] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC24
 [18] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC53
 [19] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC61f

16:30 Joint WSA/WSDL Task Force report
    - Issue LC101: message level binding? [20]
    - Issue LC102: What is the SOAP MEP for In-only [21]
    - Issue LC76a: MEPs should support addressing mechanism [22]

 [20] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC101
 [21] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC102
 [22] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC76a

17:30 Adjourn

------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday 4 March
------------------------------------------------------------------
09:00 Component model changes
    - Issue LC105: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component 
                   Model [30]
      - Original proposal [31]
      - Arthur's modification to the proposal [32]
      - Need to decide whether to allow "property" extensions at the 
        top level.
    - Issue LC75u: Add wsdl:documentation to the component model [33]
    - Issue LC80: Extension Components are not Described [34]
    - Issue LC81: The Component Model is Underconstrained wrt the 
                  WSDL 2.0 Schema [35]
    - Issue LC83: The Component Model Does Not Enforce Component 
                  Nesting [36]
    - Issue LC89g: Bleed between XML representation, infoset, 
                   pseudo-schema, component model [37]
    - Issue LC89l: Drop component model [38]
    - Issue LC99: Message Reference Component is Underspecified [39]

 [30] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC105
 [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0056.html
 [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0066.html
 [33] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75u
 [34] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC80 
 [35] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC81
 [36] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC83
 [37] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89g
 [38] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89l
 [39] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC99

10:30 Break

10:50 Component model issues (cont.)

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Media Type Description Note
    - Issue 272 Architectural issues [40]
    - Possible visit from Henry Thompson?
    - I18N issues [41]
    - Larry's comment [42]
    - Publication plan?

 [40]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2004Nov/0011.h
tml
 [41]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2005Feb/0000.h
tml
 [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0066.html

14:30 Issue LC106: Revisit LC21 resolution [43]
    - LC21: Multipart Style and {direction}=out [44]
  
 [43] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC106
 [44] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC21

15:00 Break

15:20 More RPC issues (may be bumped by higher-priority work)
    - Issue LC75e: Move RPC style to Part 2 [45]
    - Issue LC75g: RPC should allow element wildcards [46]
    - Issue LC75h: Disallow multiple returns in RPC [47]

 [45] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75e
 [46] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75g
 [47] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75h

16:30 Adjourn
Received on Friday, 25 February 2005 00:23:03 GMT

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