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

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

From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:53:01 -0800
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <41EAA9FD.9050904@sun.com>

Jonathan,

I was wondering if we could move around some agenda items, based purely on my
level of interest in some items and the 19h time difference with the West Coast.
I'm sure other folks who plan to call in will benefit from these changes too,
but I'll let them speak for themselves.

I'd like to see the following topics moved to the morning session(s):
   * Single interface per service issues
   * Operation Name Mapping
   * Issue LC50: Message Exchange Patterns -- p2c and/or p2e

The following items should stay where they are  -- in the morning -- , i.e. please
don't move them to the afternoon:
   * Issue LC74e: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial)

Ideally, it'd be nice to have
   * Application Data Feature issues
in the early afternoon, particularly on Friday.

Thanks,
Roberto


Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> [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 Sunday, 16 January 2005 17:53:08 GMT

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