Rebecca Bergersen, IONA Technologies David Booth, W3C Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems Ugo Corda, SeeBeyond Paul Downey, British Telecommunications Youenn Fablet, Canon Tom Jordahl, Macromedia Anish Karmarkar, Oracle Jacek Kopecky, DERI Amelia Lewis, TIBCO Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP Jonathan Marsh, Chair/Microsoft Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle Dale Moberg, Cyclone Commerce Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon David Orchard, BEA Systems Bijan Parsia, University of Maryland MIND Lab Arthur Ryman, IBM Asir Vedamuthu, webMethods Umit Yalcinalp, SAP Prasad Yendluri, webMethods, Inc.
Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
<scribe> Scribe: Hugo
Umit: there's some unclarity
about an action item I got
... I think that it should be a joint AI with you
Jonathan: let's change the AI to Umit to draft a reply and send it to the WG
RESOLUTION: Jan 6 minutes are approved
Review of Action items [.1]. Editorial actions [.2].
? 2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going.
? 2004-09-02: Bijan to create stylesheet to generate a
table of components and properties.
? 2004-09-16: Editors to move App C to RDF Mapping spec,
except the frag-id which will move
within media-type reg appendix.
? 2004-09-16: Editors to fix paragraph 6-9 of section
2.1.1 moved into 2.1.2
which talks about the syntax.
DONE 2004-09-30: Arthur to add Z notation to Part 1.
? 2004-10-14: Editors to add a statement like:
The Style property may constrain both
input and output, however a particular
style may constrain in only one
direction. In Section 2.4.1.1 of Part 1.
(subsumed by LC21 resolution?)
? 2004-11-09: DBooth and Roberto to describe
option 2 (remove definition of processor
conformance, write up clear guidelines
to developers) (LC5f)
? 2004-11-09: DaveO to work on text for option
3 (redefining conformance in terms
of building the component model)
(LC5f)
? 2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith
proposal using an extension namespace.
(LC54)
? 2004-11-10: Sanjiva to write the rationale for
rejecting LC75a
? 2004-11-10: Glen will post an e-mail describing
the compromise proposal on formal objections.
? 2004-11-10: Editor remove ambiguity if it exists
? 2004-11-10: Sanjiva will write up this proposal
and email it to the list as a response
to the objection.
? 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the
test suite for the purpose of
interoperability testing.
? 2004-11-11: Editors of part 2 and 3 to add text
about WSDLMEP and SOAP mep mapping that
points to section 2.3 of part 3 (LC48b)
? 2004-11-18: DBooth to propose text to clarify that
a service must implement everything in
its description.
? 2004-11-18: Mini-task force to propose one or two
proposals for the group for LC5f.
? 2004-12-02: DBooth to draft note clarifying that
(a) optional extension can change the
semantics; and (b) that if semantics are
going to change at runtime, it should be
indicated in the WSDL
? 2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specfic text
for the editors.
? 2004-12-03: Glen to send example on feature stuff for primer
? 2004-12-03: Hugo or JMarsh to write up schema group remarks
? 2004-12-16: Part 3 Editors to update the HTTP binding with
one of the above versions of text
? 2005-01-06: MTD Editors to add note saying content-type
is not sufficient, information to be
provided via other mechanism, for
example xsi:type"
? 2005-01-06: MTD editors implement proposal 2 for issue
260.
DONE [.3] 2005-01-06: Umit to respond to Henry asking for lots
of examples on Notation solution.
? 2005-01-06: Umit to draft a response to Larry, "not dynamic,
other solutions equally bad, not
recommendation track, if problems
happy to consider those"
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0024.html
Jonathan: I want to go through
issues pretty quickly next week, so that we don't spend too
much time on any one issue
... I'll have a final agenda out by Monday
Kevin: no comments about the WS-Chor LC draft
Paul: I made a few minor comments on my behalf
<Marsh> unmute bijan
Jonathan: let's keep this open for another week
Kevin: the WS Choreography WG wants to use F&P, but their draft doesn't show any evidence of that
Bijan: they have not yet, but they want to
Hugo: w.r.t. the TP, Stuart
Williams invited us to a discussion on versioning and
extensibility of XML languages
... we have done quite some work on this, with 2 extension
models, @compatibleWith, the XML 1.0/1.1 handling, etc.
Paul: I am on the planning committee and responsible for this session, and I'd like somebody from our group to go, e.g. Dave
Jonathan: the problem is conflict
with the Addressing meeting
... I'll forward the mail to the list
Jonathan: Umit sent Henry Thompson a note asking for more examples
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x271
Prasad: maybe he was confused with the text in 2.1
Jonathan: I was assuming that he meant "why should @contentType exist?"
Anish: for certain content types, you can look at the first few bytes, but it's not for all content types
RESOLUTION: issue 271 closed: no change to the spec, and we will respond to his questing
<scribe> ACTION: Umit to respond to Ian Hickson about issue 271
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x261
Umit: it's pretty clear that this follows the syntax of RFC2616
RESOLUTION: issue 261: integrate Umit's proposal
<scribe> ACTION: Editors of media type doc to implement issue 261 resolution
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x262
<asir> apologize for being late, I was attending a webMethods internal meeting
Umit: this is a circular definition problem
s/proposal/proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0013.html/
scribe: we just need to add a normative reference: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0014.html
RESOLUTION: Issue 262 to close with: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0014.html
<scribe> ACTION: Editors of media type doc to implement issue 262 resolution
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x263
Umit's proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0015.html
Umit: I'm proposing to move some
text to prevent some forward referencing
... it is also related to issue 273
Jonathan: the twe issues combined is leading towards a token with a minimum length (3 characters)
Anish: the separator in
content-type is ',' which isn't a space
... I am not even sure that you need a space after a coma
Umit: this isn't the expectedMediaType, there is no mention of coma
[ discussion of the differences between space, normalized space, and token ]
Umit: there isn't a way to trim leading and trailing spaces, but not touch the spaces in it
Jonathan: can we specify that leading and trailing spaces should be ignored?
Umit: we can do this, but with words, not with schema types
Jonathan: what about the length? is that OK to say that it should be at least 3 characters?
RESOLUTION: issue
262 closed: reference issue fixed earlier, adding minimum
3-character length
... issue 273 closed: accepting the comment, however we can't
use token; we will add prose about ignoring leading and
trailing spaces,
<scribe> ACTION: Editors to implement 262 and 273
Umit: this issue is really about the W3C template for namespace URIs
Jonathan: however, often, when we
get to the end, you drop the month
... but we'll have to ask the Webmaster for approval
RESOLUTION: issue 258 closed: we take the month out at the end
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x270
Jonathan: there isn't any normalization going on, except the content-type string itself
RESOLUTION: issue 270 closed: this is not an issue
<scribe> ACTION: Reply to issuer 270
Classified as editorial
<scribe> ACTION: Editors to resolve 275 editorially
Added to the issues list:
- LC101: message-level binding (Kevin)
- wsdlLocation version independence (Jonathan)
Jonathan: I got some +1's
... anybody thinking that @wsdlLocation should be explicitely
restricted to WSDL 2.0?
Arthur: I think that the silence
of the spec mean that it's restricted
... but I don't have any objection to the proposal
Jonathan: any objection to specify that @wsdlLocation can point to documents of any WSDL version?
Arthur: would a 1.1 and 2.0 description have the same targetNamespace?
Jonathan: I think so
Arthur: what would it mean of a targetNamespace was appearing twice?
Jonathan: I think it would be alternate locations
Umit: schema doesn't give any detail for schemaLocation
Jonathan: it's an unordered list
of pairs
... there isn't any processing model for that attribute
Arthur: we should define the semantics of the attribute
Jonathan: we should be careful not to diverge from what schema in order to comply with people's expectations
PROPOSAL: wsdlLocation can be used to point to different versions of WSDL
Roberto: what is "different versions of WSDL"? can I define my own version of WSDL?
Jonathan: we can point to 1.1,
2.0, and maybe something in the future that would follow
2.0
... if we want to be crisp, we can restrict ourselves to 1.1
and 2.0
Jacek: we should try and enable future versions
Roberto: I agree
RESOLUTION: wsdlLocation can be used to point to different versions of WSDL
Jonathan: should we talk about the relationship between different locations specified for a targetNamespace?
Arthur: yes
Jonathan: maybe we should open
this as a new issue
... not hearing any pushback on enumerating a list of possible
relationships between pairs in a non-normative way
RESOLUTION: enumerating a list of possible relationships between pairs in a non-normative way for @wsdlLocation
- @operationStyle
Jonathan: should I reopen this issue?
Umit: the problem is that the
resolution of LC21 undid the work that the WG did in another
way
... Sanjiva and I, at least, thought that we had broken the
work on the RPC style
<Roberto> +1
Hugo: have we broken something?
Umit: yes, you can't apply a style at the operation level anymore
Asir: maybe Hugo and I can make a proposal
Umit: I have made a proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0038.html
Tom: I read Umit's email, and I think that we made a mistake with the way we closed LC21
Jonathan: does anybody object reopening LC21 to address Umit's concern?
No objection
<Marsh> ACTION: Jon to reopen LC21
- David's slide 12 ?
http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/1110-dbooth-opname/slide12-0.html
David: this is proposed non-normative text for the spec
Jonathan: are people happy with David's text?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0022.html
<scribe> ACTION: Editors to incorporate the text at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0022.html
- Meaning of WSDL doc ?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0024.html
Arthur: I don't like the second
paragraph
... there are two many emphasized words, which makes me think
that they are used in a non-standard way
David: we can remove the stars
<scribe> ACTION: DBooth to rework his text with comments from A. Manes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0024.html without the *stars*
[ discussion about the use of italics ]