See also: IRC log
<dbooth> Scribe: TomJ
Jonathan: Did everyone get a chance to look at the F2F minutes?
Feb 24? no objection to approving them
F2F - will wait till next week.
3. Review of Action items [.1]. Editorial actions [.2]. ? 2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going. ? 2004-09-02: Bijan to create stylesheet to generate a table of components and properties. HOLD 2004-09-16: Editors to move App C to RDF Mapping spec, except the frag-id which will move within media-type reg appendix. ? 2004-09-16: Editors to fix paragraph 6-9 of section 2.1.1 moved into 2.1.2 which talks about the syntax. ? 2004-10-14: Editors to add a statement like: The Style property may constrain both input and output, however a particular style may constrain in only one direction. In Section 220.127.116.11 of Part 1. RETIRED 2004-11-09: DaveO to work on text for option 3 (redefining conformance in terms of building the component model) (LC5f) ? 2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith proposal using an extension namespace. (LC54) DONE [.7] 2004-11-10: Sanjiva to write the rationale for rejecting LC75a ? 2004-11-10: Glen will post an e-mail describing the compromise proposal on formal objections. ? 2004-11-10: Editor remove ambiguity if it exists ? 2004-11-10: Sanjiva will write up this proposal and email it to the list as a response to the objection. ? 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the test suite for the purpose of interoperability testing. RETIRED 2004-11-18: Mini-task force to propose one or two proposals for the group for LC5f. ? 2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specific text for the editors (LC18). MOVED 2004-12-03: Glen to send example on feature stuff for primer DONE [.3] 2005-01-06: MTD Editors to add note saying content-type is not sufficient, information to be provided via other mechanism, for example xsi:type" DONE [.3] 2005-01-06: MTD editors implement proposal 2 for issue 260. ? 2005-01-06: Umit? to respond to Larry, "not dynamic, other solutions equally bad, not recommendation track, if problems happy to consider those" DONE [.3] 2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to implement issue 261 resolution DONE [.3] 2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to implement issue 262 resolution DONE [.3] 2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to implement 262 and 273 ? 2005-01-13: Part 1 Editors to incorporate the text at 2004Dec/0022.html. MOVED 2005-01-13: Editors of media type doc to resolve 275 editorially ? 2005-01-19: Part 1 Editors to call out the difference between WSDL 1.1 and 2.0 in respect to single interface per service, and indicate alternatives ? 2005-01-19: Part 1 Editors to rewrite ONMR as Best practice. DONE [.4] 2005-01-20: Asir to think about mU and possibly propose some clarification text DONE [.9] 2005-01-20: Arthur to come up with primer text to show fault reuse and fault code. DONE [.4] 2005-02-03: Asir to work with primer eds on SOAP 1.1 example. ? 2005-02-03: Part 1 editors to incorporate text from Jan/0026 and Feb/0006. DONE [.6] 2005-02-17: Asir to review table on how import and include actually work (added by JJM) DONE [.5] 2005-02-17: Umit and Anish to complete editorial work on media type description before ftf ? 2005-02-17: Jacekk to help Bijan advance the RDF mapping work DONE [.8] 2005-03-03: Jonathan to formalize the CR criteria bag and drop "testing type system extensibility" into it ? 2005-03-03: Jonathan will ask the WG what is the publication plan for the type system note around 3/17. ? 2005-03-03: Asir to double check the subissues of 76d to see if they should be raised as issues and to do so. DONE [.10] 2005-03-04: Umit to add a warning along the lines of: "The intent of the expectedMediaType attribute is to allow WSDL authors to indicate the range of media types that are acceptable for the binary data for which it is defined for, hence it serves as an design time indicator for possible contentType values that are expected. Therefore, authors are recommended to use wild cards with care, and recommended to indicate the list of media types if the set is limited." DONE [.3] 2005-03-04: Media type editors to rename xmlmime: to xmime ? 2005-03-04: Editors to merge parts 2 and 3, move the rpc style from part 1 into it and name the result "Adjuncts". ? 2005-03-04: Roberto to come up with a proposal for LC75g (wildcards in rpc style) [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions [.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html [.3] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/media-types/xml-media-types.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Feb/0033.html [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0003.html [.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0073.html [.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0074.html [.8] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/CRCriteria.html [.9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0031.html [.10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/media-types/xml-media-types.html
Editors to move App C to RDF Mapping spec: HOLD
<scribe> ACTION: Bijan will look at item Editors to move App C to RDF Mapping spec to see if it is still relavant [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
DaveO to work on text for LC5f - Closed as issue is closed
Sanjiva will write up this proposal
and email it to the list as a response
to the objection.
Discssion about what "this proposal" is - something about WS-Addressing action value.
Sanjiva: A way to tie the Action from WS-A and the operation name feature in WSLD 2.0
Jonathan: leave this action item open for now.
All the media type issues are DONE
<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to troll minutes looking for more CR criteria. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
Jonathan has created a CR exit criteria document
Arthur: how to things get added?
Jonathan: Edit the CVS file directly, or ask Jonanthan to add.
<jjm> ACTION: Part1 editors to replace import/include table w/ that from Asir [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Editors to merge parts 2 and 3 - Amy has some ideas on how to do this
Amy: Can a part 1 editor grab the style section from P1 and give it to a part 2/3 editor?
Arthur: I can do that.
Hogo: I will do the integration
Upcoming FTF: April 21-22, Mountain View (Microsoft)
Next meeting: May 30 (Monday) thruw noon Wed.
Location would be Berlin
SAP would be hosting
Jonathan: Did anyone send text for primer?
Kevin: there were a few other who sent text (arthur)
Arthur: this was for a previous action item
DBooth: the sooner the better
Arthur: Set a deadline?
DBooth: how about March 30?
All: OK with March 30.
jonathan: Issue LC89i: We need a primer. proposed to close.
RESOLUTION: close issue LC89i
Discussion about closing various issues that have been addressed
Issue 269: "expectedContentTypes" - make it singular or plural.
Umit: if we can make someone happier, make the change
Tom: I think we should change it to plural
Jonathan: Any objection to adding the "s"? No
RESOLUTION: Change expectedContentType ==> expectedContentTypes
Jonanthan: Any objected to closing all the issues? No
RESOLUTION: to close Media type issues: 256, 257
RESOLUTION: to close Media type issues: 269, 275, 276, 277
RESOLUTION: closed accepted editorial issues: 253, 254, 255, 264, 265, 267, 274
<Arthur> latest version of primer is now available at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html
Jonathan: With these issues closed, we can move the process forward and prepare for final publications in a few weeks.
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to notify the XMLP, i18n and XML Schema groups that we are prepared to publish. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: Anish and Umit will respond to comments on media type description documents with our actions. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: Editors to check URI and schema references in Part 1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
Jonathan: In-Multi-Out MEP was added a new issue
Jonathan: propose to close issues LC20 and LC27.
Arthur: Yes, we are done with these.
Jonathan: Any objections? No.
RESOLUTION: Close issue LC20 and LC27.
<sanjiva> I'm +1 for not discussing the component model topic again ;-)
Jonathan: this was resolved at the F2F. We will keep the component model.
Jonathan: We did this over the course of a year and carefully and slowly put it in to the spec. But now some are unhappy that it is there.
Jonathan: Concerns are: spec interpretation, complexity, etc.
Bijan: Concerned that the Z
should not be normative, the text should be the only
... What happened with there is a conflict between text and Z?
Jonathan: We would have to issue and errata.
<dbooth> Both English and Z are normative, just as multiple English paragraphs are both normative. If there are conflicts then the spec is erroneous.
<sanjiva> Is our schema normative too?
<KevinL> +1 to Bijan.
Tomj: why don't we say the english takes priority?
Umit: We should move the Z to another document and make it non-normative.
Arthur: Can get others who know Z to review. The Z is more precise. It should never contradict the text.
Hugo: Maybe we should keep the Z, but move it out of part 1 & 2.
Arthur: The Z has found many bugs
in the english text. It has been very useful.
... The Z is machine readable and it can keep the spec consistant. Moving it out of the spec would make it harder to keep it in sync.
Sanjiva: Would prefer with "sub-normative" proposal: english takes priorty. Would also like to move the Z to another document.
<KevinL> currently we actually have two versions of the spec, one with the Z-notation and is normative, the other one without (hiding) the Z-notation and is non-normative. How about we keep these two versions, but treat the version WITHOUT the z-notataion as normative?
Bijan: Very much likes the machine readibility.
<sanjiva> kevin: that's certainly a viable approach .. the normative spec doens't have it but we have an "augmented' version which provides z as an additional formalism.
Roberto: How did Z help correct english?
Arthur: Z and english were inconsistant
Roberto: Was unable to run the type checker - didn't see the Z.
<bijan> addition for the scribe: While I love machine checkability, machine checking can only tell you if the formalization is consistent, not whether it is adequate to the domain. If we can get the group to agree that Arthur's formalization answers to the groups intentions as expressed in the spec.
Roberto: discussion about build process problems ...
<Zakim> dbooth2, you wanted to worry about the meaning of "if there is a conflict, then English wins"
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask Arthur about impact of moving Z to appendix
Dbooth: Can we move Z to an appendix?
Arthur: the hidden version should be enough...
DBooth: confused about how we would do the "english text wins".
<JacekK> +1 to DBooth
Sanjiva: how does the normitive schema work?
Kevin: Agrees with Arthur. The 2 versions should be good. We can treat the one without Z as normative.
<Zakim> alewis, you wanted to comment on conflicts and normativity
Tomj: Why are we talking about
display issues again - Arthur solved this problem with the
DHTML version of the spec
... I don't see the problem with the "english text wins". We just say that.
<dbooth> "Conflict" needs to be clearly defined. Suppose English forbids something that the Z permits. Which wins? Suppose the Z forbids something that the English permits. Which wins?
Amy: The Z is much more precise, the english leave much more room for interpratation. This is bad
<bijan> The problem with Z being more precise where there is an abmiguity is that arthur is the one who decided (roughly) what interpretation wins.
<bijan> If the group is ok with that, that's fine, of course
<alewis> tom, my point is not that "this is bad." the point is that an attempt to clarify by saying "the usually-more-ambiguous version trumps the usually-more-precise version" makes the extra precision of zed utterly pointless.
<dbooth> +1 to alewis
Arthur: Want to ship the Z, very useful.
<dbooth> chad option no: no
Jonathan: Proposal: strip the Z from the normative, leave Z in the informational version of the spec.
Remove the Z from the normiative version of spec: Results of question: 13 yes, 4 no.
Jonathan: Any objections? No.
<sanjiva> I suggest we keep it as-is in the editor's copy version
<sanjiva> That forces people to read it .. rather than ignoring it
RESOLUTION: Remove the Z from the normiative version of spec.
<Marsh> ACTION: Editors (Arthur?) to hide the Z from the normative version. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action07]
Jonathan: This sounds "mostly harmless". Send mail to the list as we will discuss next week.
Arthur: Volunteers to write up a proposal to fix the fact that we don't have any extension components.
Sanjiva: Isn't this by design?
Jonathan: please take this issue to the list.
Arthur: This is probably closed because in F2F in Boston was added a parent component property.