W3C

Web Services Description Working Group telcon

28 Jul 2005

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present:
Rebecca Bergersen, IONA Technologies
Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
Kendall Clark, University of Maryland MIND Lab
Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet, Canon
Hugo Haas, W3C
Tom Jordahl, Macromedia
Anish Karmarkar, Oracle
Jacek Kopecky, DERI Innsbruck at the Leopold-Franzens-Universitšt Innsbruck, Austria
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP
Dale Moberg, Cyclone Commerce
David Orchard, BEA Systems
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Asir Vedamuthu, Microsoft
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Invited Expert
Umit Yalcinalp, SAP
Regrets
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
Tony Rogers, Computer Associates
Observers:
Charlton Barreto, Adobe
Chair
Jonathan
Scribe
Kevin

Contents


<KevinL> approval of minutes. there are a few corrections from Arthur and Jean-jaques

no other corrections, minutes approved.

no objection to approval of F2F minutes either

AI review

?         2005-06-16: Amy to provide test cases for MEPs not described
                      in Part 2, due 2005-07. 
DONE      2005-07-14: Roberto find comments Amy proposed to schema and
                      added them
DONE [.2] 2005-07-14: Marsh to send a mail flushing out implementations.

DONE [.3] 2005-07-20: Marsh to respond to all comments. 
DONE FTF  2005-07-20: Arthur to investigate LC91/96 and Noah's proposed
          rewording
DONE [.4] 2005-07-20: Marsh to reply to Noah about LC91(?) saying that 
                      our spec already covers his concern 
?         2005-07-20: dorchard to respond to commenter on keeping 
                      mustUnderstand 
?         2005-07-21: pauld to write a proposal for a working group 
                      report for requirements for schema evolution 
                      following closure of LC124 
DONE [.5] 2005-07-21: amy to withdraw Tibco's participation from the 
                      formal objection on the ONR 
DONE [.10] 2005-07-21: arthur to review the status of IBM's formal 
                      objection to the ONR 
DONE [.6] 2005-07-21: jonathan to review the status of Microsoft's 
                      formal objection to the ONR 

Current Editorial Action Items
DONE      2005-07-20: Editors to incorporate amended proposal from 
                      Jonathan as regards LC75f resolution 
                      (attributes for RPC). 
DONE [.9] 2005-07-20: Part two editors to incorporate text for section 
                      on security considerations, as approved 
DONE [.9] 2005-07-20: editors to clarify that setting wsoap:action sets 
                      the soap action property on all messages in 
                      operation. 
DONE [.8] 2005-07-20: editors to incorporate the proposed text from 
                      Noah for LC96 into section 4.2 of part one. 
DONE [.7] 2005-07-20: editors to replace "with some additional 
                      restrictions" in section 3.1.1 by "with the 
                      differences defined in this and the following 
                      section." 
DONE [.9] 2005-07-21: Editors of Part 2 to implement 1a (error if 
                      mustUnderstand conflicts with schema def) 
?         2005-07-21: amy to write abstract for alt schema languages 
                      and to do some cleanup under jonathan's direction 
?         2005-07-21: editors of note to add references to wsdl 
                      documents (RNG, etc.) 
?         2005-07-21: Arthur to add stable identifiers for each 
                      assertion, due 2005-09-01.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jul/0111.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jul/0111.html
[.4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005Jul/0011
.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jul/0126.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jul/0139.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Jul/0020.html
[.8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Jul/0021.html
[.9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jul/0148.html
[.10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jul/0142.html

<hugo> it's at: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/07/objections.html

administrivia

igor and gudge has retired from the group, Asir has rejoined

TIBCO has approval for hosting the Sept F2F in bayarea, pending for availability of facility

Amy: we have a room.
... will be in Palo Alto

<Marsh> Prefs: start of week, Tues/Wed if possible.

Nov 9 F2F in Tokyo

<alewis> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=3303+Hillview+Ave,+Palo+Alto,+CA+94304&spn=0.028692,0.058953&t=h&hl=en

scribe: cohosted with ws-a again

no telecon in august, next one in sept 1

publication status

ws-a notational convention calls out extensions from psudeo syntax

scribe: Arthur is working on it, ideally done before the CL pub

<Tomj> I think it is a good idea. Can we leave some extensibility in if they help make things clearer?

scribe: we should do the same thing

tomj: sounds like a good idea

sanjiva: we cann't do that. for example, we need to show bindings

Umit: we shouldn't change anything in WSDL. tell ws-a that in certain points we need to show extensibility

Jonathan: we will drop it now, may come back to it in Sept
... there are questions about wsdl:import. sounds indicating inconsistent b/t primer and core?

arthur: I have answered the question in email to the person. the primer is clear

Jonathan: should we leave Primer in LC while others doc goes to CR in sept? since primer has undergone lot of changes since last LC

Jacck: I like this way of thinking.

Jonathan: examples of the primer should be put in our test suite

Paul: the versioning section has a number of examples

Kevin: most examples in primer are incomplete, just focusing on a particular section

arthur: we will have complete examples in the test backet, validate it and align the primer with it

jonathan: what kind of extra validation will be needed for the primer

Kevin: encourage the group to review the primer. Doubt that CR or LC will make any difference for primer

Jonathan: Now to me it's nice to keep our docs in sync. I would suggest we make all the doc CR

JacekK: are you saying you wanted to keep primer in LC now and later promote it to PR directly

Umit: we should have one criteria for all the doc

<sanjiva> +1 for making the doc be a CR rather than an LC

Arthur: is there anyway somebody will implement the primer?

+1 for keep all docs in sync,

Jonathan: Any objection to move primer to CR along with other docs?

Umit: to encourage the group to pay serious attention to the primer. LC may make it easier to change the primer

Jonathan: My suggestion is still to keep in sept 19 as the end date of Primer, along with the other docs.

no objections. recorded as a consensus of the group

LC Publication date

Huge: hopefully end of next week, with help of Arthur

Jonathan: xpointer schema registeration...
... when should we register our scheme?

Hugo: don't think we need to do anything

Jonathan: need to fig out if we can change our schema once it's registered

RDF mapping

<Tomj> Macromedia has no position on the RDF mapping and is willing to drop it from the list of deliverables if necessary

it's not clear to me that the RDF mapping is able to advance to CR in a few month, maybe in the spring, say March

Bijan apologied for blocking this. one suggestion is to pass the pen to Jacek

other idea is to pull it out from the recommendation track

scribe: do the group feel we will be able to make it through the recommendation track?

Arthur: IBM has team doing RDF mapping. but we believe it should be done by OWL people. If nobody wants to work on it, IBM is ok to drop it

Jacek: I would like to have the pen passed to me

<kendall> ouch

Jacek: I don't have the current status of the doc since Bijan forgot to send me the attachment

I will pick up where Bijan has left. we should be able to have a complete draft in August. it's still possible to CR in a few months

Jonathan: I am appointing Jacek as the editor of the RDF mapping. Let's check the progress in Sept.
... what does the group think to take the RDF draft directly to CR without going the LC step?

Hugo: the charter calls for RDF mapping, I don't think we really need OWL-S
... since the group doesn't have the expertise, we can not be forced to deliver this doc (Scribe not sure he got Hugo's point right)

<JacekK> ack

<pauld> me s/dog/DAWG/

Umit: should we have a deadline for resolving this issue?

Jonathan: if we don't have a draft to look at in our Sept F2F, we should pressure very hard to drop it.
... Jacek, you see the frustration of the group, will you be able to make it?

Jacek: I will try. Will let the group know if I cann't make it

<kendall> :>

Arthur: want to clarify that we agree RDF mapping should not be biased to any language

some more discussion on xpointer register, jonathan suggest we discuss it as a LC comments later

TomJ: what's the date for LC publication?

Jonathan: Hugo estimated next Wednesday

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.126 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/07/28 16:25:14 $