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

Updated 8AM start: Agenda, 3-4 March 2005 WS Desc FTF, Boston

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 07:58:23 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A506B71D2C@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Swapped Fri morning and afternoon sessions to accommodate adjourning at 4, and per WG agreement, will start at 8AM.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday 3 March
------------------------------------------------------------------

09:00 Opening formalities
    a. Introductions & logistics
    b. VoteBot
    c. Assign scribes:
       Bijan Parsia (T PM), Prasad Yendluri, Kevin Liu, Youenn Fablet,
       Glen Daniels (T AM), Roberto Chinnici (F AM), 
       Allen Brookes (F PM), Adi Sakala
       Umit Yalcinalp, Paul Downey, Dale Moberg, Tom Jordahl,
       Tony Rogers, Rebecca Bergersen

09:15 Alternate Schema Languages
    - Issue LC70: Pluggability of Schema Languages in WSDL [1]
      - Proposal A: "mustUnderstand" the schema language. [2]
      - Proposal B: Tighten the coupling with XML Schema.
    - Issue LC52b: Last Call Review Comments (b) [3]
    - Issue LC63: Mixing Schema Languages [4]

 [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC70
 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Oct/0024.html
 [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC52b
 [4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC63

10:30 Break

10:50 Conformance
    - Issue LC5f: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance
                issues (f) [5]
      - Roberto's proposal [6]
      - No final resolution from FTF, AIs to DBooth/Roberto and DaveO
        to write up competing proposals
      - DBooth/Roberto's proposal [7]
      - Mini-TF to work on a single proposal (stalled out).  Want to see
        whether we're still waiting for an alternative proposal before
        deciding the issue.
    - Issue LC75r: Remove conformance requirement on XML Schema [8]
    - Issue LC75v: Remove "Processor Conformance" [9]

 [5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5f
 [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Oct/0027.html
 [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0099.html
 [8] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75r
 [9] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75v

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Issue 76d: First class support for headers [10]
    - DaveO's v1.2 Headers proposal from Jan FTF. [11]
    - Asir's proposal for a first-class header support, elements [12]
    - Asir's proposal for a first-class header support, types [13]
    - Asir's proposal for SOAP-specific header support [14]
    - subissue a: mandatory mustUnderstand [15]
    - subissue b: MUST if possible [15] (Editorial?)
    - subissue c: Use Schema for versioning, not SOAP headers [15]
    - subissue d: Wrapper type can't be validated [15]
    - subissue e: mismatched feature/modules [15]

 [10] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC76d
 [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0040.html
 [12]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/att-0019/first-c
lass-headers-A.html
 [13]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/att-0019/first-c
lass-headers-B.html
 [14]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/att-0094/soap-he
ader-blocks.html
 [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0009.html
 [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0018.html

15:00 Break

15:20 More "AD" issues:
    - Issue LC24: "ad:mustUnderstand" - ?? [17]
    - Issue LC53: Optional predefined features in Part 2 [18]
    - Issue LC61f: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (f) [19]

 [17] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC24
 [18] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC53
 [19] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC61f

16:30 Joint WSA/WSDL Task Force report
    - Issue LC101: message level binding? [20]
    - Issue LC102: What is the SOAP MEP for In-only [21]
    - Issue LC76a: MEPs should support addressing mechanism [22]

 [20] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC101
 [21] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC102
 [22] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC76a

17:30 Adjourn

------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday 4 March
------------------------------------------------------------------
08:00 Media Type Description Note
    - Issue 272 Architectural issues [40]
    - Possible visit from Henry Thompson?
    - I18N issues [41]
    - Larry's comment [42]
    - Publication plan?

 [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2004Nov/0011.html
 [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2005Feb/0000.html
 [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0066.html

09:30 Issue LC106: Revisit LC21 resolution [43]
    - LC21: Multipart Style and {direction}=out [44]
 
 [43] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC106
 [44] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC21

10:30 Break

10:50 More RPC issues (may be bumped by higher-priority work)
    - Issue LC75e: Move RPC style to Part 2 [45]
    - Issue LC75g: RPC should allow element wildcards [46]
    - Issue LC75h: Disallow multiple returns in RPC [47]

 [45] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75e
 [46] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75g
 [47] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75h

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Component model changes
    - Issue LC105: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component
                   Model [30]
      - Original proposal [31]
      - Arthur's modification to the proposal [32]
      - Need to decide whether to allow "property" extensions at the
        top level.
    - Issue LC75u: Add wsdl:documentation to the component model [33]
    - Issue LC80: Extension Components are not Described [34]
    - Issue LC81: The Component Model is Underconstrained wrt the
                  WSDL 2.0 Schema [35]
    - Issue LC83: The Component Model Does Not Enforce Component
                  Nesting [36]
    - Issue LC89g: Bleed between XML representation, infoset,
                   pseudo-schema, component model [37]
    - Issue LC89l: Drop component model [38]
    - Issue LC99: Message Reference Component is Underspecified [39]

 [30] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC105
 [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0056.html
 [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0066.html
 [33] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75u
 [34] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC80
 [35] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC81
 [36] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC83
 [37] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89g
 [38] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89l
 [39] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC99

15:00 Break

15:20 Component model issues (cont.)

16:00 Adjourn
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2005 15:58:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:35 GMT