W3C

Web Services Description WG

24 Mar 2005

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Charlton Barreto, webMethods
Rebecca Bergersen, IONA Technologies
David Booth, W3C
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
Bijan Parsia, University of Maryland MIND Lab
Tony Rogers, Computer Associates
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Sanjiva Weerawarana, IBM
Umit Yalcinalp, SAP
Regrets
Hugo Haas, W3C
Jonathan Marsh, Chair/Microsoft
Asir Vedamuthu, webMethods
Chair
Dave Orchard
Scribe
TonyR

Contents


 

 

<dbooth> Scribe: TonyR

approving minutes

minutes approved

skipping action items

next face to face

reminder - register early and often for Mountain View and Berlin

Primer sections

<pauld> ACTION: DaveO to produce HTTP binding section for primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

<pauld> ACTION 1 = daveo to produce HTTP binding section for primer

HTTP binding - issue LC28

DaveO: need someone to propose text to close LC28

Charlton: volunteers to propose text

Issue LC47: describing the HTTP error text for faults

<dbooth> ACTION: Charlton to propose text for LC28: HTTP Transfer Coding and 1.0, per Asir's proposed resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]

DaveO: volunteers to write up response to LC47

<dbooth> ACTION: DaveO to propose text for Issue LC47: describing the HTTP error text for faults [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]

LC69a

DaveO: resolve by allowing a list of separatorchars
... looking for volunteers to write up this solution

Charlton: is volunteered to take this on

<dbooth> ACTION: Charlton to propose solution for Issue Issue LC69a: XForms comments on (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 3: Bindings (a): XForms comments on (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 3: Bindings (a) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]

DaveO: any objections to allowing the separator char to be specified
... none

Issue LC69b: XForms comments on (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 3: Bindings (b)

DaveO: recalls this being included already - why was it dropped? Anyone remember?

Arthur: yes, we had it

<dbooth> ACTION: DaveO to figure out when/why multpart/related got dropped from HTML binding section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]

Arthur: can find multipart form, not multipart related

DaveO: will resolve it

LC77a - Namespaced elements and urlformencoded

DaveO: namespace name was going to be ignored
... speaking as BEA: seems like a bad idea
... describing an earlier proposal for handling namespaces in urls

<pauld> notes xforms appears to support a variety of multipart methods: http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/slice11.html

DaveO: we have a choice: contrain elements to be unqualified, or explain how to serialise them
... comments? suggestions of other solutions?

omnes: silence

DaveO: suggests qualified names should be serialised, and say how

Arthur: why not serialise it as XML?

<dbooth> ACTION: DaveO to dig up his old proposal for URL-encoding namespaces, for Issue LC77a: Namespaced elements and urlformencoded [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]

DaveO: HTTP Get does not allow a body

<dbooth> Arthur: XPOinter has a way of putting Qnames on a URI.

Arthur: XPointer has a way of putting QNames on a URI - has a syntax for including namespaces

<dorchard> #xpointer(xmlns...)

Arthur: XPointer uses schemes

DaveO: other comments?

omnes: none

LC77b: drop HTTP Binding

DaveO: as BEA: will be implementing full WSDL 2.0 spec, including HTTP binding

Arthur: renewed interest in REST

DaveO: wrote up what a REST implementation (Yahoo search API) in WSDL would look like

<dorchard> http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2005/03/02/yahoo_search_web_service_in_wsdl_20

<dbooth> Bijan: DAWG will also be using the HTTP binding.

DaveO: the WSDL HTTP binding does a good job
... there are scenarios where it doesn't work well - when HTTP operations are spread across many URIs
... few operations, many URIs is not so easy - bulky and complex for something that should be simpler
... binding is fine for parameterised operations

Arthur: can we keep the binding?

<gdaniels> Sonic has no immediate plans to implement this portion of the spec.

DaveO: LC77b is an announcement that MS won't support this section. Any other companies wish to disclose their plans?

Arthur: IBM a strong supporter of SOAP binding. Intend to support lighter technologies such as PHP

DaveO: Yahoo sent a comment to the list

Sanjiva: Apache will be supporting both bindings

<pauld> notes we're chartered to deliver bindings for "HTTP/1.1 GET and POST requests."

DaveO: HTTP binding has support from at least a few vendors, and it's in the charter, therefore close with no action

<sanjiva> ARGH! Pressed the wrong button ...

<sanjiva> calling back

<sanjiva> sorrry

<dorchard> sanjiva, did you want to be on the queue?

DaveO: anyone opposed to closing the issue with no action?

omnes: no opposition

RESOLUTION: LC77b (drop HTTP binding) closed with no action

Roberto: HTTP binding covers many cases
... REST not particularly well served by HTTP binding as it stands
... perhaps the three cases should be covered by separate bindings?

DaveO: interesting - perhaps we need an HTTP core + ...
... perhaps the core could be used directly by SOAP binding?
... perhaps they could be separate documents?
... maybe the raiser of LC77b might support a subset of the binding?

Roberto: charter references WSL 1.1 - can we decouple what is ready from what will take more work

<pauld> 'REST' APIs such as del.icio.us actively encourage client URI manipulation

DaveO: difficult to use WSDL to describe construction of a compound URI

Sanjiva: if we can support Yahoo, Google, Amazon, it is probably sufficient

DaveO: we seem to be inventing technology, rather than standardising existing
... lack of proposals from the community
... is there a proposal of where to divide the binding?

Roberto: hard to draw the line accurately
... we need to describe the HTTP binding carefully

<scribe> ACTION: Roberto to suggest where to divide the HTTP binding into pieces [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action07]

<dbooth> ACTION: Roberto to draft proposal to split HTTP binding into 3 bindings [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action08]

<pauld> ACTION- 9

<scribe> ACTION: DaveO to query MS whether they would support part of the HTTP binding if divided [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action09]

LC111 - HTTP error code for fautls

<dorchard> fault definition SHOULD NOT go against

<dorchard> the definition of the HTTP error codes

DaveO: perhaps this issue can be addressed by a simple sentence

DBooth: should that SHOULD NOT be a MUST NOT?

<dorchard> the definition of the HTTP error codes

<dorchard> the definition of the HTTP error codes

TomJ: let's keep it as SHOULD NOT, so it is not a testable assertion

<dorchard> The fault definition SHOULD NOT go against the definition of theHTTP error codes, see RFC 3205.

<scribe> ACTION: editors to include a sentence stating that fault definition SHOULD NOT go against the definition of theHTTP error codes, see RFC 3205. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action10]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Charlton to propose solution for Issue Issue LC69a: XForms comments on (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 3: Bindings (a): XForms comments on (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 3: Bindings (a) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Charlton to propose text for LC28: HTTP Transfer Coding and 1.0, per Asir's proposed resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: DaveO to dig up his old proposal for URL-encoding namespaces, for Issue LC77a: Namespaced elements and urlformencoded [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: DaveO to figure out when/why multpart/related got dropped from HTML binding section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: DaveO to produce HTTP binding section for primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: DaveO to propose text for Issue LC47: describing the HTTP error text for faults [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: DaveO to query MS whether they would support part of the HTTP binding if divided [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: editors to include a sentence stating that fault definition SHOULD NOT go against the definition of theHTTP error codes, see RFC 3205. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action10]
[NEW] ACTION: Roberto to draft proposal to split HTTP binding into 3 bindings [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: Roberto to suggest where to divide the HTTP binding into pieces [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/24-ws-desc-minutes.html#action07]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.117 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/03/24 17:14:52 $