See also: IRC log
<dbooth-home> Scribe: DMoberg
Minutes approved
Editors will start a weekly call.
Individual action items will get due dates
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 2.4.1.1 of Part 1.
? 2004-11-10: Editor remove ambiguity if it exists
? 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.
? 2005-03-10: Editors to check URI and schema references in
Part 1
RETIRED 2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going.
Versioning action item history and current status from schema group. Marsh proposes retiring issue
David O reviews schema group plans on enhancing improvability.
<scribe> ACTION: Pauld to propose issue for extensibility/versioning for wsdl using schema 1.0, due April 13 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
RETIRED 2004-09-02: Bijan to create stylesheet to generate a
table of components and properties.
<scribe> ACTION: Marsh to review Bijan's issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
<Marsh> , due April 13
? 2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith
proposal using an extension namespace.
(LC54), due April 13th.
Orchard Compatible with issue April 18 due date
lost in the typhoon
? 2004-11-10: Glen will post an e-mail describing
the compromise proposal on formal objections.
? 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, due April 7
? 2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specific text
for the editors (LC18).
? 2005-02-17: Jacekk to help Bijan advance the RDF mapping work
RDF mapping, deferred due date
DONE 2005-03-03: Asir to double check the subissues of 76d to
see if they should be raised as issues and to
do so.
<asir> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0108.html
76d action item done
DONE 2005-03-10: Anish and Umit will respond to comments on
media type description documents with our
actions.
media type documents, marked done
? 2005-03-10: Bijan will look at item Editors to move App C
to RDF Mapping spec to see if it is still
relavant
appendix c move to rdf, deferred
? 2005-03-10: Marsh to troll minutes looking for more CR
criteria. April 13th.
DONE 2005-03-17: WG members review MTD by next week.
DONE 2005-03-24: Charlton to propose solution for Issue
LC69a: XForms comments on (WSDL) Version 2.0
Part 3: Bindings (a)
<charlton> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0107.html
lc 69a done
DONE 2005-03-24: Charlton to propose text for LC28: HTTP
Transfer Coding and 1.0, per Asir's
proposed resolution
<charlton> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0103.html
lc28 charlon done
? 2005-03-24: DaveO to dig up his old proposal for
URL-encoding namespaces, for Issue LC77a:
Namespaced elements and urlformencoded, April 13th
DROP 2005-03-24: DaveO to figure out when/why multpart/related
got dropped from HTML binding section, April 13th
DaveO varied, April 13 due date
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo adding binding info multipart/related 69b [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Hugo due April 13 also
DONE 2005-03-24: DaveO to produce HTTP binding section for primer,
April 13th
? 2005-03-24: DaveO to propose text for Issue LC47:
describing the HTTP error text for faults,
April 13th
? 2005-03-24: DaveO to query MS whether they would support
part of the HTTP binding if divided, April 13
? 2005-03-24: Roberto to draft proposal to split HTTP
binding into 3 bindings, April 13th
Roberto on splitting HTTP binding, April 13
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions [.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html
Robert asks 75g wherabouts
<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to look into Robertos 75g proposal, April 7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to see about Berlin logistics, APril 7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
93 and 107 issues schema types for arrays and another about uniqueness. Status?
Pauld says he would like to drop array issue at present time
DavidB says that someone else will need to add array info if it is to be in primer
<scribe> ACTION: Pauld will respond to 107 by april 7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
93 issue on primer, DavidB says now covered
Issue 93 to be closed
<pauld> just sent something in on versioning: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0112.html
Primer section 7.* review: 7.4 done by Booth, Arthur has submitted all directly into primer
Pauld 7.5 to arrive this afternoon
7.12 is at risk
7.2 primer and 7.7 in unknown state
7.7 to be dropped
<scribe> ACTION: Marsh to inquire about Glen and 7.2 for primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-ws-desc-minutes.html#action07]
Consensus is 7.2 is dropped.
<Tomj> I think dropping 7.2 is a really bad idea!
DavIdB notes April 15 is hard stop on his work on primer
<Tomj> If anything needs primer text to help users, F&P does. I was looking forward to reading it.
Dan C on POST instead of GET: Booth says that is editorial fix needed
<scribe> ACTION: Kevin fixes editorial POST/GET and safety edits by Apr 7 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-ws-desc-minutes.html#action08]
Skipped this week
Propose to move section 8 to start.
Should this be editorial?
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to move section 8 to front and issue is editorial [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-ws-desc-minutes.html#action09]
<Marsh> , due April 7
Arthur to complete by 9:51 MST
Consider schema import statement without schemaLocation, is it valid? Should it be regarded as already seen and in-line
Marsh, this discussed previously and Marsh says wsdl is "good"
Arthur proposes that the documents be OK and that the spec should indicate this
Arthur text proposal read "All inline schemas that are contained in a WSDL document and any other
WSDL documents that it directly or indirectly imports or includes MUST be
used when resolving QName references to elements or types that belong to
namespaces that are imported via xs:import elements that have no
schemaLocation attribute."
Alewis does not know what the term "indirectly" is doing here
Is visibility of schema components being altered?
Arthur distinguishes location knowledge from visibility. Visibility goes with import and rules remain as is
Amy, agrees with the intent of Arthur's proposal. Thinks language not crisp enough
Is making this qname resolution process clear going to be a rathole? Pauld says the Arthur proposal should be make to work
Arthur describes another case in which schemaLocation is known Scribe misses details
<scribe> ACTION: Amy proposes text that Arthur will evaluation. Several test cases to be produced [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-ws-desc-minutes.html#action10]
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur produces said test cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-ws-desc-minutes.html#action11]
Actions 10 and 11 to be done by April 7
Arthur service referenc issue fix-- There is a fix however. The reason that we were able to restrict the
attribute values is that they are unqualified. Therefore, if we changed
our WSDL schema to use elementFormDefault="unqualified", and we ensured
that <endpoint> was a local element, then we could restrict it. However,
for consistency, we should probably also make the other nested elements
unqualified, i.e. just keep the top-level elements (<interface>,
<binding> , <service>, etc.) qualified. We can still have named complex
types for all the elements though.
Amy says the mixing of qualified and unqualified is likely to produce confusion
Marsh says that this mixing is not MS best practice probably
<dorchard> I don't quite get this.... I like qualified.
Roberto say service reference made obsolete by EPR in WSA
Arthur says that other proposals have been proposed historically so a review of this may be in order.
<charlton> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0103.html
<Arthur> Note that the XML Schema [XML Schema: Structures] type of the element information item service as defined in the WSDL schema MAY be used as the basis for defining new elements which can be used as service references in message exchanges. To enable such reuse, the WSDL schema defines the attribute information item name as optional in the type of the element information item service , while it is REQUIRED for the element information item service as indicated abo
<Arthur> Note:
<Arthur> See the primer [WSDL 2.0 Primer] for more information and examples.
<Arthur> the above is from the Last Call Draft, Part 1, Section 2.13.2
<charlton> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0109.html
o resolve this issue I propose we update section 3.10.1 to have the
following language:
"Every Binding Message Reference component MAY indicate which transfer
codings, as defined in section 3.6 of [IETF RFC 2616], are available
for this particular message.
The HTTP binding provides a mechanism for indicating a default value at
<Arthur> for Service Reference text see http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#Service_XMLRep
the Binding component and Binding Operation levels.
If no value is specified, no claim is being made.
Any transfer coding specified for HTTP 1.0 Binding is ignored."
Call for objections, none made
Lc28 closed in accordance with charlton solution as above
<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0107.html
<charlton> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0107.html
<charlton> issue is that XForms has a 'knob' for either ';' or '&' as separator
I propose adding the following section as appropriate in the HTTP
binding spec:
The HTTP binding specification adds the following property to the WSDL
component model (as defined in [WSDL 2.0 Core Language]):
* {http query parameter separator}, a xs:string to the Operation
component.
Hugo asks about previous history on this issue of alignment with Xforms or otherwise
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo will send to list the history and discuss alignment issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-ws-desc-minutes.html#action12]
<Marsh> , Due April 7
Due April 7
wsdl: documentation 2nd class citizen because not in component model
Arthur to do so, mostly harmless
Unlike schema with annotation hook for machine readable stuff, wsdl open content so no semantics for documentation element
Roberto agrees with Arthur that wsdl:documentation has no machine processable content and so is not important enought to call out as a component. Amy agrees also
<Marsh> I also heard a concern that component equivalence should not depend upon documentation.
Amy likens wsdl:documentation to a comment, and notes the complication that it would make functionally equiv wsdls unequal
RESOLUTION: issue 75u closed with no action
Lc83 resolved by prior resolutions. Closed
<scribe> ACTION: lc80 proposal to Arthur by Apr 13 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-ws-desc-minutes.html#action13]
Issue lc99 has a proposal for discussion next week