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

Agenda, 20-21 January 2005 WS Desc FTF, Melbourne AUS

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:38:05 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A506384DD8@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

[Agenda for joint meeting 19 Jan 3-5PM to be sent separately.]

------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday 20 Jan
------------------------------------------------------------------

09:00 Opening formalities
    a. Introductions & logistics [1]
    b. Assign scribes:
       Jeff Mischkinsky, David Orchard, Sanjiva Weerawarana, 
       Anish Karmarkar, Arthur Ryman, Kevin Liu, 
       Youenn Fablet, Glen Daniels, Paul Downey, Tom Jordahl 
    c. Status and schedule update
     - Primer
     - LC docs
     - MTD note
     - SOAP 1.1 binding note
     - RDF mapping
     - Responding to comments

 [1] 

09:30 Include/Import issues
    - Issue LC52a: Last call review comments (a) [2]
    - Issue LC60: Can multiple inline schemas have same targetNS? [3]
    - Issue LC74: Idle question [4]
    - Issue LC75s: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (s) [5]
    - Issue LC75t: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (t) [6]
    - Issue LC75w: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (w) [7]

 [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC52a
 [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC60
 [4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC74
 [5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC75s
 [6] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC75t
 [7] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC75w

10:30 Break

10:50 Import/include (cont.)

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Single interface per service issues:
    - Issue LC73: WSDL Last Call issue [8]
    - Issue LC75n: WSDL 2.0 Last Call Comments [9]
    - Issue LC89k: Comments [10]
    - Roberto's proposal [11]
      Majority in favor of reopening?

 [8] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC73
 [9] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC75n
 [10] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC89k
 [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0094.html

14:15 Composition Edge Case issues
    - Issue LC20: Feature Composition Edge Cases [12]
    - Issue LC27: Property Composition Edge Cases [13]
 
 [12] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC20
 [13] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC27

15:00 Break

15:20 Application Data Feature issues:
    - Issue LC76d: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (Part 2) (d) [14]
    - Issue LC24: "ad:mustUnderstand" - ?? [15]
    - Issue LC53: Optional predefined features in Part 2 [16]
    - Issue LC61f: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (f) [17]

 [14] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76d
 [15] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC24
 [16] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC53
 [17] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC61f
 
17:00 Adjourn

------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday 21 Jan
------------------------------------------------------------------
09:00 Issue LC74e: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (e) [20]
    - Roberto's Proposal [21], I18N response [22]
    - Related issues:
      - Issue 75q (drop XML 1.1 support) [23]
      - Issue 89b (drop abstract data types) [24]
      - Issue 89c (drop XML 1.1 support) [25]

 [20] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC74e
 [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0044.html
 [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0051.html
 [23] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75q
 [24] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89b
 [25] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89c

10:30 Break

10:50 Message and Fault Issues
    - Issue LC61c: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (c) [26]
    - Issue LC71: default interface/operation/@pattern [27]
    - Issue LC61b: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (b) [28]
    - Issue LC72: Faults that are not described in WSDL? [29]
    - Issue LC75i: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (i) [30]
    - Issue LC75k: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (k) [31]
    - Issue LC75l: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (l) [32]

 [26] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC61c
 [27] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC71
 [28] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC61b
 [29] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC72
 [30] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75i
 [31] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75k
 [32] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75l

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Operation Name Mapping
    - Issue LC82: Operation Name Mapping Requirement Bug [33]
    - Issue LC84a: Operation Name Mapping Requirement is ambiguous [34]
    - Issue LC84b: Operation Name Mapping Requirement has the wrong 
                   granularity [35]
    - Issue LC84c: Operation Name Mapping Requirement doesn't go far 
                   Enough 36

 [33] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC82
 [34] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC84a
 [35] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC84b
 [36] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC84c

15:00 Break

15:20 Issue LC50: Message Exchange Patterns -- p2c and/or p2e [37]
    - Proposed resolution [38]
    - Definition of node: [39, 40]

 [37] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC50
 [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0088.html
 [39] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0070.html
 [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0072.html

16:00 MEP issues
    - Issue LC76a: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (Part 2) (a) [41]
    - Issue LC76b: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (Part 2) (b) [42]

 [41] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC76a
 [42] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC76b

17:00 Adjourn
Received on Saturday, 15 January 2005 00:38:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:34 GMT