See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Asir S Vedamuthu
<scribe> ScribeNick: asir
RESOLUTION:
Approved
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/att-0168/20050428-ws-desc-minutes.html
... Approved F2F Minutes
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/att-0162/20050421-ws-desc-minutes.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/att-0162/20050422-ws-desc-minutes.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0162.html
DUE 5-12 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the test suite for
the purpose of interoperability testing,
due 2005-04-13.
PENDING 2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specfic text for
the editors (LC18), due 2005-04-13.
PENDING 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.
DONE[.14] 2005-04-21: Arthur to review primer sec 4.1 for correctness,
due 2005-05-05.
DONE 2005-04-21: Kevin to add inheritance example to primer sec 5,
due 2005-05-05.
DONE 2005-04-21: Kevin to do outbound interface example in primer,
due 2005-05-05.
DONE 2005-04-21: Hugo to check (Section 6.6) for correctness,
due ?.
DUE 5-12 2005-04-21: GlenD to check scoping (Section 7.2) references,
due ?.
DONE[.13] 2005-04-21: Hugo fix type thing and look at rest for
consistency in DaveO's examples at
.../wsdl20-primer.html#reservationDetails_HTTP and
.../wsdl20-primer.html#reservationList_HTTP_GET,
due ?
DONE[.13] 2005-04-21: Hugo to establish RDDL docs, due ?.
PENDING 2005-04-21: Pauld to craft, publish Common Schema structures
to WG for review for publication as WG Note,
due 2005-05-28.
DONE[.13] 2005-04-21: Hugo to take action to check with Henry if accept
our resolution, due ?.
PENDING 2005-04-21: Hugo to continue to look at IRI style/URI style,
due 2005-05-26. (LC74a)
DONE [.8] 2005-04-21: Asir to provide modified text of section 4.2 to
editors, due 2005-05-06 (LC120)
DONE [.4] 2005-04-21: Tom to provide additional text to section 7,
part 1, wsdlLocation, due 2005-05-02. (LC59d)
DONE [.5] 2005-04-22: Jonathan to ask WS-Addressing to ensure that they
clearly specify overriding of the fault
destination, due ?2005-05-02. (LC76a)
DONE 2005-04-22: Glen to send a response for LC89e, due ?.
DONE 2005-04-22: Amy to define propogation, due ?. (LC76b)
? 2005-04-22: Umit to write an alternate proposal,
due 2005-05-12 (LC117)
DUE 5-12 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 ?. (LC61c)
? 2005-04-22: Arthur to investigate the Schema Designators and
come back with a proposal, due 2005-05-12. (LC64)
DUE 5-12 2005-04-22: Amy to investigate a solution, due ? (LC74c)
DONE [.6] 2005-04-28: Marsh to add link to primer to-do list from WG
page, due 2005-04-28.
DONE[.12] 2005-04-28: Charlton and Jacek to review WS-A, due
2005-05-04.
DONE [.9] 2005-04-28: Jonathan will draft a proposal on how to use an
EPR as a WSDL extension, due 2005-05-12.
Outstanding editorial work:
DONE [.3] 2004-10-14: Roberto 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.
(subsumed by LC21 resolution?)
REASSIGN [.10] 2004-11-10: Arthur remove ambiguity if it exists
DONE 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
DONE[.11] 2005-01-19: Part 1 Editors to rewrite ONMR as Best practice.
DONE [.7] 2005-04-22: Arthur to add "When you want to describe a
message that sends an endpoint reference, create
an element that restricts wsdl:EndpointType and
specifies a fixed value for the @binding
attribute." (LC117)
DONE [.3] 2005-04-21: Roberto Fix the "processor" language in 4.1.1,
(LC75w)
DONE [.7] 2005-04-21: Arthur to make sure that inline/embedded schema
used consistently and defined. (LC116)
PENDING 2005-04-21: Part 2 editors to define frag id extensions for
soap:header, http:header, soap:module. (LC80)
PENDING 2005-04-28: Editors to introduce specialized markup for
components and properties.
[.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-archive/2005Apr/0146.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0169.html
[.5]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Apr/0068.ht
ml
[.6] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2005May/0000.html
[.8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Apr/0042.html
[.9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0000.html
[.10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005May/0009.html
[.11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2005May/0008.html
[.12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0003.html
[.13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0010.html
[.14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005May/0019.html
Marsh: we have a new member today, Sanjiva !!
<sanjiva> Nice to meet everyone ;-)
Next F2F discussion, May 31 - June 1 Berlin
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34041/wsdf2fberlin5/
<sanjiva> Jonathan: I just committed the text from Tom Jordahl for wsdlLocation
Marsh: async TF issues will be
scheduled for the F2F
... other major issue is schema wg issue, LC90
... and, then onto second last call
Publication status report
Media Type Description Note published, http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xml-media-types-20050502/
Marsh: thanks to everyone
Ready to be published - Core, Adjuncts, Primer, and SOAP 1.1 Binding Note
Time, Tuesday next week
Marsh: Arthur reported some
inconsistencies in the primer
... beneficial to publish now
kevin: add editorial notes and publish
Marsh: lets go as is
kevin: agrees, describes a few typos .. will hold them for later
Primer review and issue tracking process
Marsh: Arthur and JJ reported issues, happy to not track them, suggests Kevin track it
Kevin: agrees, easier for him to track
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050331/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-soap-20050331/
Jacek, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0003.html
[going back to review of action items, specially for glen :-)]
[JaceKK walks thru ws-addressing issues]
First: when reply is expected, replyTo is mandatory .. tho the same communication channel is used; replyTo is mostly unnecesary; ask ws-addressing wg to make it optional
[several: been there, done that, got shot down]
sanjiva: whats it to do with WSDL?
JaceKK: WSDL doesn't give a normative use for replyTo
Marsh: we have developed MEPs, none of them use replyTo
JaceKK: we have two bindings, they only use two MEPs and never require replyTo
sanjiva: not related to WSDL at all .. if the user points out a different address, then they are allowed to use it
DaveO: supports JacekK's position .. the pattern of anonymous reply is a very important comment for the WSDL WG to make it
Marsh: when you are using our req-response, you are forced to put replyTo header, but it doesn't provide any value
Umit: points out that this issue is premature, because WSDL 20 binding is yet to be published
glen: am happy to send this comment
Roberto: we should send the comment and not wait for the TF
Marsh: suggests a poll
<hugo> Jacek, have you seen http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Mar/0141.html (background on this issue)?
Marsh: allow the replyTo header to be anonymous URI
Sanjiva: not going to object to it, but this comment is not germane to WSDL
Hugo: agrees
Umit: agrees
Amy: this is an accurate comment, in favor of sending it
<hugo> (saying that, I *wanted* to have ReplyTo optional, but lost in the Addr WG; I'm not expecting this to change at this point, as there's no new info IMO)
<uyalcina> +1
[straw poll]
Marsh: proposal - we like to see replyTo default to anonymous URI
<JacekK> the new info is the relative weight of another group's opinion about this, not technical new info, but more like implementors' "hard to implement" or "unnecessary code", it doesn't break anything except the Occam's razor 8-)
<scribe> ACTION: GlenD to write - to see replyTo default to anonymous URI - comment to WS-Addressing WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
<Marsh> ACTION: Send a note to WS-A that more comments will come [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
JaceKK [ONMR related issue]
JaceKK: we decided that
operations do not have semantics, ws-addressing implies that
operations carry semantics .. tho DaveO's proposal
(compatibleWith) did imply some semantics
... WS-addressing action is not formulated as an extension that
satisfies ONMR best practice
Marsh: what falls into core, wsdl, ..
JaceKK: core recommends this tie .. I would like the action to be optional
Sanjiva: we shouldn't make this comment
Hugo: agrees
Umit: agrees
Hugo: we will discuss another related issue later on (LC84b, right?
Jacekk: in most cases, body will identify the operation and action info is redundant
<glenD> Note that action is NOT, I believe, in any way constrained to have anything to do with operation as far as WS-Addressing (or SOAP) is concerned.
<glenD> Thus I'm not sure it does in general satisfy the ONM best practice - just CAN be used that way
<glenD> (and there's no standard indication in WSDL that it *is* being used that way, btw!)
[discussion about action, ONMR, best practice, ..]
<charlton> Jonathan, Hugo, Asir - I'll touch base with each of you after 10.30-11.00 PST
Marsh: not hearing any support for this comment, anyone?
Jacekk: agrees to move on
Marsh: do yo have major/minor comments?
Charlton: minor and writing them out as we speak
Marsh: will schedule them for next week
Clarification for wsdl:required attribute needed (Umit) - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0171.html
<anish> +1 to umit's interpretation
Umit: but, the text is not clear about it
Marsh: to make it editorial
What are sections 2.16.x for? (Jonathan) - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0007.html
Marsh: JJ already fixed this one
Comment: wsdl:include (Asir) - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005May/0021.html
Marsh: any objections to assinging these to editors?
Editors have resolved many editorial issues
LC74g, LC75b, LC78, LC87, LC89g, LC93, LC95, LC107, LC112, LC115, LC119, LC123, LC125
Proposal to close these editorial issues
RESOLUTION: Close these editorial issues: LC74g, LC75b, LC78, LC87, LC89g, LC93, LC95, LC107, LC112, LC115, LC119, LC123, LC125
<scribe> ACTION: Asir to enumerate what is pending for LC97 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC59d
Tom's proposal, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0169.html
Marsh: any discussion?
... any objections to close LC59d using Tom's text?
RESOLUTION: LC59d is closed
<sanjiva> FYI the text for 59d has already been put into the document
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75o
About the service section, http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Service_details
Marsh: proposal to drop 'if any'
Sanjiva: +1
Asir: +1
Pauld: there are cases where there aren't endpoints but extensions will offer similar info
Marsh: any objections to removing 'if any'?
[clarifications ...]
RESOLUTION: close issue LC75o by removing 'if any' from LC Draft Table 2-13
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75c
Jonathan summarizes the poll #s from F2F
* chad 1| 4.0| 5.0| 6.0| 0.0| 0.0 [1st round pretty evenly split]
* chad 2| | 5.0| 9.0| 1.0| 1.0 [2nd round pretty decisive]
Marsh: calls for objections to option 2. That is, move it to an extension (part 2)
Hugo: is worried how this is going to work
[sliding into design ...]
<scribe> ACTION: Umit to writeup a simple proposal to make {safety} as an extension (deadline - 2 weeks) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC71
Marsh: any new info on LC71, how do we move this forward?
Sanjiva: this is something obvious, no proposal needed
amy: there isn't a good way to compute the distinction
Sanjiva: for the meps that we provide bindings, we can setup default values
really, really, really, amy: really
Sanjiva: not going to push for it
<sanjiva> yayyyyyyy!!!!!
<sanjiva> "its *really* a pain in the butt to put in the pattern all the time"
DaveO: looking up while I was working on async issues, I like to see a default mechanism, this will really help
<alewis> i think we'd be really close to raising an objection to this, if it happens.
DaveO: pick a few MEPs
[discussion about fault, fault references, higher level faults, any fault that you like to ...]
DaveO: am in agreement with Sanjiva
<scribe> ACTION: Sanjiva to writeup a proposal for LC71 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/05/05-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
[Meeting adjourned]