See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: pauld
marsh: have to drop off around the hour, hugo to take the chair later
anish: has to drop off soon for WS-RX
minutes approved from last week's telcon
umit: driving to WS-RX
jjm: has to drop off early also
? 2005-04-21: Pauld to craft, publish Common Schema structures
to WG for review for publication as WG Note,
due 2005-06-28.
?* 2005-05-12: Glen to add scoping example to primer,
due eob 2005-06-16.
?* 2005-05-19: Umit to provide #none for Primer,
due eob 2005-06-16.
DONE [.3] 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 eob 2005-06-16.
DONE [.8] 2005-06-01: Glen to formulate concrete async requirement
for CG, due 2005-06-16.
DONE [.5] 2005-06-09: Jonathan to make a registration page for the
July FTF, due 2005-06-16.
? 2005-06-16: Amy to provide test cases for MEPs not described
in Part 2, due 2005-07.
DONE [.6] 2005-06-16: Arthur to update Service Reference part of primer,
due 2005-06-23.
DONE [.4] 2005-06-16: Arthur to fix composition models, due 2005-06-23.
DONE [.7] 2005-06-16: Jacek to propose a non-XML example, probably
MIME-based, for next telcon, due 2005-06-23.
[.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/2005Jun/0069.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Jun/0045.html
[.5] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34041/wsdesc0705/
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Jun/0044.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jun/0075.html
[.8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-cg/2005Jun/0002.html
<hugo> Requirements from Glen: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-cg/2005Jun/0002.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jun/0060.html
marsh: make sure you register for
July f2f
... looking for host on West Coast in September (Bay Area)
<sanjiva> please make it second week of september ...
<sanjiva> not 1st week :(
+1 kids go back to school first week in september in the UK
<sanjiva> can we pick a date now? that's kinda consistent with the at least 60 days notice thing right?
daveo: mnot isn't active in the bay area, would other west coast area could be an option
marsh: thinking week of the 12th as a straw man
<sanjiva> +1 for the week of the 12th for me!
marsh: Kevin isn't here for
Primer status review
... editing status, most of our documents are ready to go
bijan: willing to publish as-is.
two issues for extension writers regarding mixing and matching
multiple type systems
... will send text
Jacek: wanted text regarding non-XML type systems. Suggested text turned out to be short suggesting use of mime-types
bijan: finds mime-type confusing example for alternative type systems. suggests java type system
umit: thought example was for
primer, not alternate schema language note
... example seems to complex for primer, would prefer something
else from mime-type
jacek: only alternative that came
to mind was RDF/OWL which would be too complex, but likes
bijan's suggestion of Java, exhibits import, etc
... may not have time over the next couple of weeks
marsh: do we really need this to declare victory? others outside the group could do this work and not impact our timeline
bijan: wonders about the value of
our typesystem extensibility without examples
... but the value of doing the extra work is questionable
hugo: matter of priorities, we could drop this work to publish on time
<hugo> /me especially as it seems that there are details to iron out
hugo: sees value in the work, but can be done later
marsh: summary of Schema Workshop
discussion
... i submitted a brief paper introducing LC124 and presented
the issue to the Schema Working Group / Workshop
Workshop program, slides and papers: http://www.w3.org/2005/03/xml-schema-user-program.html
scribe: workshop saw value in our
requirements
... schema group seemed unlikely to complain if we provided
support for ignoring unknown content
... some members seemed enthusiastic about the notion of a
schema describing what should be processed, not just
validation
daveo: what was the reaction of where the annotation should take place
allen: Noah expressed some concerns about compatible evolution
pauld: people were interested in the notion this would better sell the PSVI as opposed to boolean validation
marsh: strong interest in the room for work in the area of versioning, but unlikely the schema WG would provide the solution
tom: so must-ignore seems to be a valid approach?
<kliu> jonathan, don't want to interrupt the conversation - just want to let you know that I am in the call and sorry for calling in late - got home too late last night
marsh: i was encouraged, there seem to be no obvious land mines
hugo: what impact will this have on our schedule?
marsh: seemed likely that this
could be tractable
... had good feedback from Microsoft, that our products work in
this way already
daveo: has suggested text, which
I ran by Henry
... softens the relationship between the flag and the result,
close to paul's original proposal but sharper
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jun/0083.html
scribe: outlines the
proposal
... there maybe other techniques beyond double schema
validation which are also valid
... for removing unknowns
hugo: is there a default value for the flag?
daveo: will of the working group seems to be not to ignore unknowns
tom: do you think we can really get away with this?
daveo: this doesn't change how a schema processor works
marsh: few processors validate
anyway
... one of the topics of discussion was relationship between
data binding and validation, and they seem to be orthogonal
tom: seems to be true of at least Axis
daveo: and xmlbeans
pauld: xmlbeans is awesome, btw
marsh: sees this is this a policy
assertion, rather than a change to schema processor
... was orignially concerned by this proposal, now
encouraged
tom: we seem to have new information, and seems like a useful thing, was concerned about implementation
daveo: encouraged by how many implementations already do this already
marsh: any tricky aspects could be flushed out using CR
pauld: would love it to be the default, but probably a step too far for this working group
tom: happy to move forward
marsh: do we want to make this standard beahviour, and not even have a switch at all?
tom: wow, you're really trying to make paul happy :-)
daveo: would like this to be standard behaviour
pauld: would make our spec simpler
daveo: you might think this is a big change too late, and the WG prefers optionality
marsh: (speaking for Microsoft) seems like it's on by default in our products
pauld: there are brittle implementations out there, but we tell customers NOT to use those implementations
tom: we could change Axis to work
in this way quite easily
... do we use a MUST for this
sanjiva: we don't talk about processors, so how do we specify this
marsh: we can find semantics for this
sanjiva: most implementations don't do validation
daveo: best position could be to make it optional, but the default
hugo: leaning towards this
<sanjiva> pauld: I also noted that this approach does not allow one to detect an error element vs an extension to be ignored
marsh: so proposal is to still have a switch
daveo: ws-security had a more strict model, maybe a must understand model is needed
sanjiva: without any validtion, hard to tell difference between an error and a new version
marsh: using henry's algorithm, UPA does assist here
daveo: java code provides extra implicit validation, e.g. mapping a string to a java int
sanjiva: maybe a more dynamic language might help here, and wouldn't be able to distinguish between an error and a new version
<sanjiva> :-)
marsh: ability to mark in WSDL
that a service does strongly validate does seem to have
value
... any objection to providing a flag?
non heard
marsh: has to drop off
... descision tree, flag, default, where it goes (schema,
element, endpoint, description, etc)
pauld: we're loosing critical mass, and this is v.important
daveo: will crispen up our proposal
marsh: any objection to ending
the call now?
... but we still have some other work to do, but many people
going to WS-RX
meeting adjourned