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

RE: Agenda, 31 May - 1 Junel 2005 WS Desc FTF, Berlin

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 17:01:20 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF1008962A@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

For Wednesday, I'd like to make sure that the scheduled Wednesday am
issues, primarily LC 130 and 89j, are dealt with between the start and
the break as currently scheduled.  Async TF and 75c should be dealt with
after the break.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:10 PM
> To: WS-Description WG
> Subject: Agenda, 31 May - 1 Junel 2005 WS Desc FTF, Berlin
> 
> 
> Logistics [1] and dial-in details [2]
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/jun-f2f.html
> [2] TBA
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tuesday 31 May
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 09:00 Opening formalities
>    a. Introductions & logistics
>    b. Assign scribes:
>       Jean-Jacques Moreau, Anish Karmarkar, Jeff Mischkinsky
>       Allen Brookes, Roberto Chinnici, Glen Daniels,
>       Kevin Canyang Liu, David Orchard
>    c. Action Item [3] Review:
>       ?* 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the test suite for
>                      the purpose of interoperability testing,
>                      due 2005-05-12.
>       ?* 2005-03-31: Marsh to take on (or recommend closing) Bijan's
AI
>                      to produce a component/property table via XSLT,
>                      due 2005-05-28.
>       ?* 2005-04-21: Pauld to craft, publish Common Schema structures
>                      to WG for review for publication as WG Note,
>                      due 2005-05-28.
>       ?* 2005-04-22: Amy to provide examples for the advanced section
>                      of the primer. Amy to send them to Kevin and test
>                      materials to Arthur, due 2005-05-19. (LC61c)
>       ?* 2005-05-05: Sanjiva to writeup a proposal for LC71,
>                      due 2005-05-26.
>       ?* 2005-05-12: Glen to add scoping example to primer,
>                      due 2005-06-01.
>       ?* 2005-05-19: Umit to provide #none for Primer, due 2005-06-01.
>       ?* 2005-05-19: DaveO to ressurect option to indicate GET more
>                      directly, due 2005-06-01.
> DONE [4] 2005-05-26: Marsh to ask Rich about the worst example for
>                      LC89j, due 2005-05-31.
>       ?* 2005-05-26: Paul to describe LC124 proposal in more detail
>                      (where does the attribute go, what's the value
>                      for normal Schema validation?), due 2005-05-31.
>       ?* 2005-05-26: Glen to put an LC101 proposal on the table,
>                      due 2005-05-31.
>       ?* 2005-05-26: Tom to provide a concrete proposal to address
>                      LC82, due 2005-05-31.
>     DONE 2005-05-26: Marsh to ask DBooth if the concerns in LC84c
>                      are still valid, due 2005-05-31.
> 
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
> [4]
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0087
> .html
> 
> 09:20 Issue LC117: Problem with Service References:
>             elementFormDefault="qualified" prevents restriction [5]
>     - Proposal from Umit [6].
> 
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC117
> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0062.html
> 
> 10:30 Break
> 
> 10:50 Issue LC71: default interface/operation/@pattern [7]
>     - Awaiting proposal from Sanjiva.
> 
> [7] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC71
> 
> 12:00 Lunch
> 
> 13:00 Async TF Report
> 
> 13:30 MEP-related issues:
>     - LC79: Make sure in-only mep is supported in wsdl soap12
>             binding [8]
>       + Awaiting proposal from Glen/Async TF
>     - LC101: message level binding? [9]
>       + Awaiting proposal from Glen/Async TF
>     - LC102: What is the SOAP MEP for In-only [10]
>       + Awaiting proposal from Glen/Async TF
>     - LC98: {soap mep} property and SOAP 1.1 Binding [11]
>     - LC114: In-Multi-Out MEP [12]
> 
> [8] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC79
> [9] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC101
> [10] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC102
> [11] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC98
> [12] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC114
> 
> 15:00 Break
> 
> 15:20 Operation Name Mapping issues
>     - Review ONMR rewrite as Best Practice [13]
>     - Issue LC82: Operation Name Mapping Requirement Bug [14]
>       + Proposal from Tom [15]
>     - Issue LC84b: Operation Name Mapping Requirement has the wrong
>                    granularity [16]
>       + Proposals from Hugo [17], Sanjiva 18].
>     - Issue LC84c: Operation Name Mapping Requirement doesn't go far
>                    enough [19]
>       + Asked DBooth for more info.
> 
> [13]
>
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#Serv
> ice_OperationName
> [14] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC82
> [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0085.html
> [16] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC84b
> [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0035.html
> [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0134.html
> [19] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC84bc
> 
> 17:30 Adjourn
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wednesday 1 June
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 09:00 Issue LC130: Binding fault defaulting? (Jacek) [20]
> 
> [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0069.html
> 
> 10:00 Issue LC89j: Use namespaces to avoid local-name conflicts [21]
>     - More detail from Rich [22], response from Arthur [23]
> 
> [21] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89j
> [22]
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0088
> .html
> [23]
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0089
> .html
> 
> 10:30 Break
> 
> 10:50 Issue LC75c: Remove {safety} property [24]
>   - Options:
>   1) Status quo
>   2) Remove safety
>   3) Proposal from Umit to move safety to an extension [25]
>   4) Expect GET proposal from DaveO
> 
> [24] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75c
> [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0059.html
> 
> 11:30 Issue LC75x: Complete or remove App D [26]
>     - Some initial options:
>     Option 0: Close issue with no action
>     Option 1: Remove app D
>     Option 2: Retitle and edit to emphasize it's far from exhaustive
>     Option 3: Strip down to D.4 only.
>     Option 4: Move to primer (includes option 2)
>     Option 5: Add exhaustive material.
> 
> [26] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75x
> 
> 12:00 Lunch
> 
> 13:00 Issue LC74c: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (c) [27]
>     - Proposal from Amy [28]
> 
> [27] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC74c
> [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0068.html
> 
> 13:20 Issue LC124: Support of evolution of messages described in
Schema
>                  1.0 [29]
>     - Awaiting proposal from Paul
> 
> [29] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC124
> 
> 14:00 Completed editorial issues [30]
>     - Proposal to close completed items which may include:
>       + LC122: "binding" versus "binding extension" [31]
>       + LC131: Notational convention abuse  [32]
>       + LC132: WSDL 2.0 2005-05-10 Working Draft Discrepancies [33]
> 
> [30] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/
> [31] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC122
> [32] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC131
> [33] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC132
> 
> 14:30 Proposals addressing formal objections. [34]
>   - Operation Name Mapping
>   - F&P: Glen's compromise [35]
> 
> [34] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/
> [35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0069.html
> 
> 15:00 Break
> 
> 15:20 Unsatisfied comments
>     - LC5a: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance
>             issues (a) [36]
>             Objection [37]
>     - LC5f: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance
>             issues (f) [38]
>             Objection [37]
>     - LC9:  How does the Operation Name Mapping Requirement [39]
>             Unclear whether there is an objection.
>     - LC51: Editorial last call review comments [40]
>             Objection [41]
>     - LC73: Raising an ugly issue again [42]
>             Objection [43]
>     - LC75f: Allow extension attributes on RPC local element
>             children [44]
>             Objection [45]
>     - LC75v: Remove "Processor Conformance" [46]
>             Objection [45]
>     - LC76a: MEPs should support addressing mechanism [47]
>             Objection [45]
>     - LC76c: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (Part 2) (c) [48]
>             Objection [45]
>     - LC76d: Replace ADD with header construct [49]
>             Objection [45]
> 
> [36] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5a
> [37] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5f
> [38]
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0020
> .html
> [39] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC9
> [40] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC51
> [41]
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0021
> .html
> [42] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC73
> [43]
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0020
> .html
> [44] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75f
> [45]
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0091
> .html
> [46] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75v
> [47] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76a
> [48] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76c
> [49] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76d
> 
> 16:30 Deliverables status and schedule
>       Upcoming pubs:
>         Core (LC2)
>         Adjuncts (LC2)
>         Primer (LC)
>         SOAP 1.1 Binding (LC)
>         Alternative Schema Languages (WD?)
>       Other deliverables:
>         RDF Mapping
>         Common Schema Structures
> 
> 16:45 Next FTF
> 
> 17:00 Adjourn
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 00:01:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:36 GMT