See also: IRC log
<dbooth> Scribe: KevinL
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 126.96.36.199 of Part 1. ? 2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith proposal using an extension namespace. (LC54) ? 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. ? 2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specific text for the editors (LC18). DONE 2005-01-06: Umit? to respond to Larry, "not dynamic, other solutions equally bad, not recommendation track, if problems happy to consider those" ? 2005-01-13: Part 1 Editors to incorporate the text at 2004Dec/0022.html. ? 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 2005-02-03: Part 1 editors to incorporate text from Jan/0026 and Feb/0006. ? 2005-02-17: Jacekk to help Bijan advance the RDF mapping work DONE 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 2005-03-04: Editors to merge parts 2 and 3, move the rpc style from part 1 into it and name the result "Adjuncts". DONE [.6] 2005-03-04: Roberto to come up with a proposal for LC75g (wildcards in rpc style) ? 2005-03-10: Anish and Umit will respond to comments on media type description documents with our actions. ? 2005-03-10: Bijan will look at item Editors to move App C to RDF Mapping spec to see if it is still relavant DONE 2005-03-10: Editors (Arthur?) to hide the Z from the normative version. ? 2005-03-10: Editors to check URI and schema references in Part 1 DONE [.3, .4] 2005-03-10: Jonathan to notify the XMLP, i18n and XML Schema groups that we are prepared to publish. ? 2005-03-10: Marsh to troll minutes looking for more CR criteria. DONE [.5] 2005-03-10: Part1 editors to replace import/include table w/ that from Asir [.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/2005Mar/0010.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Mar/0011.html [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Mar/0011.html [.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0038.html
next F2F registration is ready
Tom: the Berlin F2F is the memorial day in us. I will have to miss two F2F due to holiday conflicts
Jonathan: it's too late to change the
... Primer advanced topics contribution is due end of the month.
... Media type review. Issues reported by Marc Harley of SUN
<Marsh> ACTION: WG members review MTD by next week. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/17-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
arthur: the idea is we want to a
simple way to check top level component equivalence
... the way the spec is written makes it difficult to compare two top level components
arthur: the proposal is at url
... the question is: is top level extension part of the component comparison?
jonathan: i think yes
more clarification and discussion on the proposal
scribe think the url for the proposal should be http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0066.html
asir: question about proposal item
... seems mixing two levels of the components
arthur: extensions can be either added as a propoerty or a component
the first step is to say how it affect the component model
the problem I am trying to solve: you actually have to build up the component model before you can say how extensions affect the component model
scribe: the problem: if I have two top level components, one with extension, one without, otherwise they are same. Are these two components equivalent?
glen and Umit: we can not decide. it depends on the processing
arthur: we need some limitation here?
Umit: how about extensions under description element?
arthur: they can only be added as
... not as top level properties
Roberto: I am troubled by the proposal
it throw out important case, eg. how to interpret wsdl:interface
sanjiva: changing the semantic of wsdl components will have the same effect of changing (scribe missed the rest ...)
jonathan: xslt and wsdl is different.
<Marsh> Sanjiva compares WSDL extension and XSLT extension, to suggest restricted extension is good.
<Zakim> Roberto, you wanted to say that "subversion" includes bug fixing
wsdl is processed by a variety of processors
arthur: the high level bit: do we want to allow cut paste top level components from different documents
<Marsh> Strawpoll: Components are equivalent iff they come from documents that have the same infoset.
<pauld> chad, question: Components are equivalent iff they come from documents that have the same infoset.
<pauld> chad, option yes: yes
<pauld> chad, option no: no
<JacekK> vote: yes
<GlenD> chad got quite a workout in Boston too, he deserved a little vacation :)
jonathan: in xinclude, we only
compare uri for equavelance.
... seems to me, if we get rid of diamond inheritance, we will be able just to compare uri
arthur: that's more restrictive
<Roberto> I have to leave to go to another meeting, but I'd like to go on record saying that I'm against the restrictions (1) and (2) in 2005Mar/0074.html and I would vote against them in a strawpoll
<pauld> chad, question?
<TonyR> chad: abstain
<sanjiva> chad, question?
<sanjiva> chad, options?
<sanjiva> chad: no
<dbooth> vote: yes
<asir> chad: no
<Allen> chad: no
<Arthur> vote: no
<hugo> chad: yes, no
<uyalcina> chad: no
<anish> chad: abstain
<RebeccaB> chad: no
<Tomj> chad: abstain
<bijan> chad: abstain
<alewis> chad: no, yes
<pauld> vote: no, no, no
<GlenD> chad: abstain
<jjm> chad: abstai
<jjm> chad: abstains
<Marsh> vote: yes
<alewis> chad: count
<pauld> chad, voters?
<alewis> chad, count votes
<chad> Question: Components are equivalent iff they come from documents that have the same infoset.
<chad> Option no: no (9)
<chad> Option yes: yes (4)
<chad> 19 voters: alewis (no, yes) , Allen (no) , anish () , Arthur (no) , asir (no) , bijan () , dbooth (yes) , GlenD () , hugo (yes, no) , JacekK (yes) , jjm () , Marsh (yes) , pauld (no, no, no) , RebeccaB (no) , sanjiva (no) , scribe (no) , Tomj () , TonyR () , uyalcina (no)
<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
<chad> Candidate no is elected.
<chad> Winner is option no - no
<alewis> chad, details
* chad Election: Components are equivalent iff they come from documents that have the same infoset. * chad Method: British Columbia STV * chad Number of Ballots: 13 * chad Threshold Name: Droop Static Whole * chad Threshold Value: 7.0 * chad Delayed Transfer of Surplus: Not Enabled. * chad Batch Elimination: None * chad 2 candidates running for 1 seats. * chad R| no| yes|Exha|Surp * chad --+----+----+----+---- * chad 1| 9.0| 4.0| 0.0| 2.0 * chad Round 1: Count of first place rankings. * dbooth notes to sanjiva that that's never stopped us before ;) * chad Candidate no is elected. * chad Winner is no.
jonathan: the winner is NO
arthur: it's just hard for
processors. They don't know what to do when see top level
extensions. throw an error? continue?
... duplicate top level components can be either included via diamond inheritance or cut/paste.
<GlenD> My regrets folks - I gotta drop off for another call now. Hasta la vista.
<GlenD> I'm in favor of my/Sanjiva's(/Umit's?) take on things, btw. Build the component model, it ain't that hard.
jonathan: any alternative proposal?
<Zakim> asir, you wanted to ask a question
<sanjiva> I think we need to recognize that one CANNOT compute equivalence at the document level. Arthur's proposal is to change equivalence to be something in between name equivalence and structural equivalence.
<sanjiva> (of the corresponding component models)
lots of discussions on the 3 items in arthur's message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0056.html
arthur insists that there should be some principle determing if two components are equivalent, people say no
example: if there are two interfaces, they are same except they pointing to two different messages. are they equivalent? the weak way is, the interfaces are equivalent, but the messages are not. but the spec has a strong way. it says the two interfaces are not equivalent either
many are satisfied with the way the spec it's
<Marsh> RESOLUTION: LC105 closed with previous resolutions only, Arthur's last proposal not adopted.
arthur: Since the group don't see this as an problem. I am willing to withdraw the proposal. Maybe when people starts implment processors, they will see the problems.