W3C

WS Description WG telcon 16 June 2005

16 Jun 2005

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present:
Rebecca Bergersen, IONA Technologies
Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet, Canon
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
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
David Orchard, BEA Systems
Bijan Parsia, University of Maryland MIND Lab
Tony Rogers, Computer Associates
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Invited Expert
Umit Yalcinalp, SAP
Regrets
Hugo Haas, W3C
Chair
Marsh
Scribe
scribe-jjm

Contents


Minutes

Accepted, no changes

Action items

DROPPED   2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the test suite for 
                      the purpose of interoperability testing, 
                      due 2005-05-12.

Drop AI for Anish

DONE      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.

Component property table DONE

?         2005-04-21: Pauld to craft, publish Common Schema structures
                      to WG for review for publication as WG Note, 
                      due 2005-06-28. 
DONE      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 2005-06-09. (LC61c) 

Amy provide examples DONE

<Marsh> ACTION: Amy to provide test cases for MEPs not described in Part 2. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

?*        2005-05-12: Glen to add scoping example to primer, 
                      due 2005-06-01.
?*        2005-05-19: Umit to provide #none for Primer, due 2005-06-16. 
?*        2005-05-31: Umit to incorporate these three points into new
                      text - 1) it's about the message, dammit, not the 
                      operation, 2) it's context-dependent, 3) for the 
                      contexts which we define as common, here are the 
                      things to be thinking about (unique GEDs, etc), 
                      due 1005-06-16. 
?*        2005-06-01: Glen to formulate concrete async requirement 
                      for CG, due 2005-06-16.

Scoping PENDING

<scribe> ACTION: Glen to formulate concrete async requirement for CG, due EOB today [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]

?*        2005-06-09: Hugo to make a registration page for the July FTF,
                      due ?. 
DONE [.3] 2005-06-09: Arthur to submit errors found in Primer, 
                      due 2005-06-16. 
DONE [.5] 2005-06-09: DaveO to take another stab about rewriting the 
                      proposal for LC124, due 2005-06-16.

Outstanding editorial work:
DONE [.4] 2005-04-28: Arthur to introduce specialized markup for 
                      components and properties.
DONE      2005-06-01: Soap 1.1 binding editors to make MUST and 
                      SHOULD lower case in the Note on in-only MEPs
DONE      2005-06-09: Arthur to remove service reference from Part 1
                      (add new extension attributes). 
DONE      2005-06-09: Arthur to remove "processor" in Part 1. 
DONE      2005-06-09: Roberto to look at LC76a (including Dbooth's 
                      message) and come back if we shouldn't implement 
                      the suggested fixes.

Roberto implemented fix for LC76a, except where he disagreed with DBooth

<Roberto> more precisely, as I implemented the fix for LC76a, I found that DBooth's observation did not directly pertain to LC76a but at best they would affect the extensibility model in part 1

[.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/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Jun/0024.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Jun/0022.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jun/0016.html

Administrativia

Discussions whether we can move the f2f from Wednesday noon, to Friday noon, as per WS-Addr request.

Some people have difficulties with Friday

Jonathan to go back to MarkN and say WSDL cannot move dates, and we choose ours first.

Primer

GlenD's changes are not required for publication.

DaveO and Kevin would like to have first example extensible.

Umit and jjm disagree, first example should be simple.

DaveO says not schema primer.

Sanjiva: do not have to explain schema.

DaveO: sets bad precedent, if first example shows non-extensible design.

Umit: versioning should not come first. Will be more visible if in its own section.

Tom: keep first example simple and straigthforward.
... reader may not have much WSDL or even Schema experience.

DaveO: most people won't go to advanced section.

Sanjiva: not our role, not primer's role to explain how to write best Web service

Arthur: pedagogy, example should be simple and build up, not go directly into versioning or extensibility.

Kevin: keep first example as is.

Marsh: PROPOSAL to add note when first introduce tCheckAvailability type, for purposes of simplification, have omitted xs:any, which is however not good practice; pls see later.

DaveO: should use the most appropriate schema concept.

<Jonathan> chad: Option 1: Status Quo

<Jonathan> chad: Option 2: Add xs:any

<Jonathan> chad: Option 3: Marsh's compromise

<sanjiva> chat, 3

<sanjiva> chad, 3

<Arthur> vote: 1, 3

<Allen> vote: 3

<alewis> vote: 1, 3

<sanjiva> vote: 3, 1

<youenn> vote: 3,1

<RebeccaB> vote: 3,1

<pauld> chad: 2, 3

<Tomj> vote: 1,3

vote 1, 3

<Allen> vote: 3, 1

<Roberto> vote: 2,3

<TonyR> vote: 1, 3, 2

<JacekK> vote: 2, 3

<GlenD> vote: 2, 3

<kliu> vote: 1, 2, 3

<dorchard> vote 2,3

<Jonathan> vote: Umit: 1

<dorchard> vote: 2,3

<Jonathan> Marsh: abstain

Glen: add xs:any and neighbourghing XML comment

Marsh: so this is now the definition of option 2

<Jonathan> chad: Anish: 3, 1

<Jonathan> chad, count

<chad> Question: unknown

<chad> Option 1: Status Quo (6)

<chad> Option 2: Add xs:any (5)

<chad> Option 3: Marsh's compromise (5)

<chad> 16 voters: alewis (1, 3) , Allen (3, 1) , Anish (3, 1) , Arthur (1, 3) , dorchard (2, 3) , GlenD (2, 3) , JacekK (2, 3) , kliu (1, 2, 3) , pauld (2, 3) , RebeccaB (3, 1) , Roberto (2, 3) , sanjiva (3, 1) , Tomj (1, 3) , TonyR (1, 3, 2) , Umit (1) , youenn (3, 1)

<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.

<chad> Round 2: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.

<chad> Tie at round 1 between 2, 3.

<chad> Tie broken randomly.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 3.

<chad> Candidate 1 is elected.

<chad> Winner is option 1 - Status Quo

<JacekK> chad, count

<chad> Question: unknown

<chad> Option 1: Status Quo (6)

<chad> Option 2: Add xs:any (5)

<chad> Option 3: Marsh's compromise (5)

<chad> 16 voters: alewis (1, 3) , Allen (3, 1) , Anish (3, 1) , Arthur (1, 3) , dorchard (2, 3) , GlenD (2, 3) , JacekK (2, 3) , kliu (1, 2, 3) , pauld (2, 3) , RebeccaB (3, 1) , Roberto (2, 3) , sanjiva (3, 1) , Tomj (1, 3) , TonyR (1, 3, 2) , Umit (1) , youenn (3, 1)

<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.

<chad> Round 2: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.

<chad> Tie at round 1 between 2, 3.

<chad> Tie broken randomly.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 3.

<chad> Candidate 1 is elected.

<chad> Winner is option 1 - Status Quo

<dorchard> vote: 3

<GlenD> chad, details

<dorchard> chad, count

<chad> Question: unknown

<chad> Option 1: Status Quo (6)

<chad> Option 2: Add xs:any (4)

Marsh: move forward as is for this round of publication?

<chad> Option 3: Marsh's compromise (6)

No objections

<chad> 16 voters: alewis (1, 3) , Allen (3, 1) , Anish (3, 1) , Arthur (1, 3) , dorchard (3) , GlenD (2, 3) , JacekK (2, 3) , kliu (1, 2, 3) , pauld (2, 3) , RebeccaB (3, 1) , Roberto (2, 3) , sanjiva (3, 1) , Tomj (1, 3) , TonyR (1, 3, 2) , Umit (1) , youenn (3, 1)

<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.

<chad> Round 2: Eliminating candidate 2.

<chad> Candidate 3 is elected.

<chad> Winner is option 3 - Marsh's compromise

Marsh: was PaulD's versioning text incorporated?

PaulD: some typos to be done by EOB today
... will edit via CVS directly

Kevin: references example?

Arthur: will do

<Jonathan> ACTION: Arthur to update Service Reference part of primer. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]

Marsh: thanks to everyone who edited the primer

Kevin: away whole of next week

Core Spec

<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jun/0034.html

Marsh: Arthur raised new issue on feature composition

Arthur: component acquire features and properties through references
... service or endpoint component not covered

Arhtur: service should inherit interface

Arthur: endpoint should inherit from service and endpoint

Sanjiva: is that not covered by extension rules?

Arthur: no, covered by f&p section on composition
... also, interface should inherit f&p from interfaces it extends

Glend: agrees

+1

<RebeccaB> +1

<Jonathan> ACTION: Arthur to fix composition models. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]

Part 2

Jjm: Implemented changes for <comp> and <prop>

Arthur: there were some issues

Jjm: they've been fixed today

LC122

LC122 & LC131

Jjm: implemented fix for LC122 earlier this week

Marsh: objection to close with editor fix?

No objection

LC124

Marsh: spend no more than 15min on this
... DaveO proposed some syntax options
... is there a necessity to validate twice?

Pauld: examples pretty good. Do we really want to force people to performing validation?
... was difficult to embed in a single rule

DaveO: not well prepared on this topic today

Pauld: was trying to embed henry's algorithm

Marsh: has been wondering if really want to force people to validate messages. Maybe people don't.

<pauld> trying to find a way of expressing how a validator marks elements as 'notKnown' in the PSVI with some simple rules

Marsh: if we mandate Henry's algorithm upon validation, then maybe also have to mandate for extracting information from messages. Will perhaps be too invasive.

Sanjiva: any possible patent issue?

Pauld: Henry doesn't think so. His technique is in the spec

Tom: 2 points. 1: initially, favourably inclined to proposal, nice way to handle versionning. However, not as simple, a lot of complexity. Also, may not cover all items.
... 2: weeks away only from Last Call. Too complex maybe to handle right now. Starting maybe a year or 2 too late.

Pauld: maybe put on hold until next week, when there is a schema workshop.

Umit: will attend also that workshop, but will that help?

Pauld: missing step for me, is which element you can ignore without performing the validation step.

Marsh: so not an obvious proposal today. Need something sufficiently concrete to present to the WG.
... would also like to discuss this with schema next week
... would like to keep this moving forward. Some progress this week, not as much as would have liked.
... any more discussion?
... move on, come back to WG after schema workshop

Umit: will proposal come before next telcon?

Marsh: my target, but will be difficult. For the following telcon.
... specs will be ready next week, or at most the following one, to vote for publication

Alternative Schema Language Issue

Marsh: Bijan raised questions a few weeks ago

<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0083.html

Marsh: should we do anything in this document about non XML type system?

Jacek: we would raise a number of issues if we were to write an example WSDL

Marsh: this document does not have a lot of visibility

Jacek: maybe simple MIME example. Can proposal one

<scribe> ACTION: Jacek to propose a non-XML example, probably MIME-based, for next telcon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]

<JacekK> ACTION: JacekK to propose an example for using MIME as non-XML type system in WSDL by 2005/6/22 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]

<JacekK> ACTION- 5

<sanjiva> +1 to Amy: "Just don't do that"

Amy: people should not have multiple definitions for the same element

Jjm: is this not covered by some text I added to the spec this week?

Amy: could provide proposal for next telcon

Arthur: best leave it undefined

Marsh: any enthousiam for changing alt-schema document?

Arthur: in the core spec? normative document?

Marsh: no to both questions

Arthur: leave it to the editors of that document

Marsh: will ask Bijan is he has proposal
... moving to Bijan's bullet 3

Amy: suggest not do it, no type union on multiple languages

Marsh: will give bullet 2 and 3 back to Bijan, asking if he has a proposal

ADJOURN

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Amy to provide test cases for MEPs not described in Part 2. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Arthur to fix composition models. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Arthur to update Service Reference part of primer. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Glen to formulate concrete async requirement for CG, due EOB today [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Jacek to propose a non-XML example, probably MIME-based, for next telcon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: JacekK to propose an example for using MIME as non-XML type system in WSDL by 2005/6/22 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.126 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/06/16 16:34:34 $
--=_mixed 00706ADC85257022_=--