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

Agenda, 31 May - 1 Junel 2005 WS Desc FTF, Berlin

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 16:10:13 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507B4A175@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Logistics [1] and dial-in details [2]
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/jun-f2f.html
[2] TBA

------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday 31 May
------------------------------------------------------------------

09:00 Opening formalities
   a. Introductions & logistics
   b. Assign scribes:
      Jean-Jacques Moreau, Anish Karmarkar, Jeff Mischkinsky
      Allen Brookes, Roberto Chinnici, Glen Daniels, 
      Kevin Canyang Liu, David Orchard
   c. Action Item [3] Review:
      ?* 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the test suite for 
                     the purpose of interoperability testing, 
                     due 2005-05-12.
      ?* 2005-03-31: Marsh to take on (or recommend closing) Bijan's AI
                     to produce a component/property table via XSLT, 
                     due 2005-05-28.
      ?* 2005-04-21: Pauld to craft, publish Common Schema structures
                     to WG for review for publication as WG Note, 
                     due 2005-05-28. 
      ?* 2005-04-22: Amy to provide examples for the advanced section 
                     of the primer. Amy to send them to Kevin and test 
                     materials to Arthur, due 2005-05-19. (LC61c) 
      ?* 2005-05-05: Sanjiva to writeup a proposal for LC71, 
                     due 2005-05-26.
      ?* 2005-05-12: Glen to add scoping example to primer, 
                     due 2005-06-01.
      ?* 2005-05-19: Umit to provide #none for Primer, due 2005-06-01. 
      ?* 2005-05-19: DaveO to ressurect option to indicate GET more 
                     directly, due 2005-06-01.
DONE [4] 2005-05-26: Marsh to ask Rich about the worst example for
                     LC89j, due 2005-05-31. 
      ?* 2005-05-26: Paul to describe LC124 proposal in more detail
                     (where does the attribute go, what's the value 
                     for normal Schema validation?), due 2005-05-31. 
      ?* 2005-05-26: Glen to put an LC101 proposal on the table, 
                     due 2005-05-31. 
      ?* 2005-05-26: Tom to provide a concrete proposal to address 
                     LC82, due 2005-05-31. 
    DONE 2005-05-26: Marsh to ask DBooth if the concerns in LC84c 
                     are still valid, due 2005-05-31.

[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0087
.html

09:20 Issue LC117: Problem with Service References:
            elementFormDefault="qualified" prevents restriction [5]
    - Proposal from Umit [6].

[5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC117
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0062.html

10:30 Break

10:50 Issue LC71: default interface/operation/@pattern [7]
    - Awaiting proposal from Sanjiva.

[7] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC71

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Async TF Report

13:30 MEP-related issues:
    - LC79: Make sure in-only mep is supported in wsdl soap12 
            binding [8]
      + Awaiting proposal from Glen/Async TF
    - LC101: message level binding? [9]
      + Awaiting proposal from Glen/Async TF
    - LC102: What is the SOAP MEP for In-only [10]
      + Awaiting proposal from Glen/Async TF
    - LC98: {soap mep} property and SOAP 1.1 Binding [11]
    - LC114: In-Multi-Out MEP [12]

[8] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC79
[9] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC101
[10] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC102
[11] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC98
[12] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC114

15:00 Break

15:20 Operation Name Mapping issues
    - Review ONMR rewrite as Best Practice [13]
    - Issue LC82: Operation Name Mapping Requirement Bug [14]
      + Proposal from Tom [15]
    - Issue LC84b: Operation Name Mapping Requirement has the wrong
                   granularity [16]
      + Proposals from Hugo [17], Sanjiva 18].
    - Issue LC84c: Operation Name Mapping Requirement doesn't go far 
                   enough [19]
      + Asked DBooth for more info.

[13]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#Serv
ice_OperationName
[14] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC82
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0085.html
[16] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC84b
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0035.html
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0134.html
[19] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC84bc

17:30 Adjourn

------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday 1 June
------------------------------------------------------------------
09:00 Issue LC130: Binding fault defaulting? (Jacek) [20]

[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0069.html

10:00 Issue LC89j: Use namespaces to avoid local-name conflicts [21]
    - More detail from Rich [22], response from Arthur [23]

[21] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89j
[22]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0088
.html
[23]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0089
.html

10:30 Break

10:50 Issue LC75c: Remove {safety} property [24]
  - Options:
  1) Status quo
  2) Remove safety
  3) Proposal from Umit to move safety to an extension [25]
  4) Expect GET proposal from DaveO

[24] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75c
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0059.html

11:30 Issue LC75x: Complete or remove App D [26]
    - Some initial options:
    Option 0: Close issue with no action
    Option 1: Remove app D
    Option 2: Retitle and edit to emphasize it's far from exhaustive
    Option 3: Strip down to D.4 only.
    Option 4: Move to primer (includes option 2)
    Option 5: Add exhaustive material.

[26] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75x

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Issue LC74c: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (c) [27]
    - Proposal from Amy [28]

[27] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC74c
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0068.html

13:20 Issue LC124: Support of evolution of messages described in Schema
                 1.0 [29]
    - Awaiting proposal from Paul

[29] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC124

14:00 Completed editorial issues [30]
    - Proposal to close completed items which may include:
      + LC122: "binding" versus "binding extension" [31]
      + LC131: Notational convention abuse  [32]
      + LC132: WSDL 2.0 2005-05-10 Working Draft Discrepancies [33]

[30] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/ 
[31] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC122
[32] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC131
[33] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC132

14:30 Proposals addressing formal objections. [34]
  - Operation Name Mapping 
  - F&P: Glen's compromise [35]

[34] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/ 
[35] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0069.html

15:00 Break

15:20 Unsatisfied comments
    - LC5a: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance 
            issues (a) [36]
            Objection [37]
    - LC5f: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance 
            issues (f) [38]
            Objection [37]
    - LC9:  How does the Operation Name Mapping Requirement [39]
            Unclear whether there is an objection.
    - LC51: Editorial last call review comments [40]
            Objection [41]
    - LC73: Raising an ugly issue again [42]
            Objection [43]
    - LC75f: Allow extension attributes on RPC local element 
            children [44]
            Objection [45]
    - LC75v: Remove "Processor Conformance" [46]
            Objection [45]
    - LC76a: MEPs should support addressing mechanism [47]
            Objection [45]
    - LC76c: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (Part 2) (c) [48]
            Objection [45]
    - LC76d: Replace ADD with header construct [49]
            Objection [45]

[36] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5a
[37] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5f
[38]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0020
.html
[39] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC9 
[40] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC51 
[41]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0021
.html
[42] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC73
[43]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0020
.html
[44] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75f
[45]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0091
.html
[46] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75v
[47] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76a
[48] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76c
[49] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76d

16:30 Deliverables status and schedule
      Upcoming pubs:
        Core (LC2)
        Adjuncts (LC2)
        Primer (LC)
        SOAP 1.1 Binding (LC)
        Alternative Schema Languages (WD?)
      Other deliverables:
        RDF Mapping
        Common Schema Structures

16:45 Next FTF

17:00 Adjourn
Received on Friday, 27 May 2005 23:10:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:36 GMT