W3C

Web Services Description WG telcon

3 Nov 2005

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present:
Charlton Baretto, Adobe Systems
Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
Youenn Fablet, Canon
Hugo Haas, W3C
Tom Jordahl, Macromedia
Anish Karmarkar, Oracle
Jacek Kopecky, DERI Innsbruck at the Leopold-Franzens-Universitšt Innsbruck, Austria
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
David Orchard, BEA Systems
Vivek Pandey, Sun Microsystems
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Adi Sakala, IONA Technologies
Asir Vedamuthu, Microsoft
Regrets
Rebecca Bergersen, IONA Technologies
Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP
Tony Rogers, Computer Associates
Umit Yalcinalp, SAP
Chair
Marsh
Scribe
Roberto

Contents


<scribe> Scribe: Roberto

Approval of minutes

minutes approved with no objections

review of action items

?         2005-07-21: pauld to write a proposal for a working group 
                      report for requirements for schema evolution 
                      following closure of LC124 
?         2005-09-26: Arthur to look for simplification options for 
                      comment 12 of 344. (LC344#12), due 2005-10-06. 
?         2005-09-26: Jonathan to point this out when it gets 
                      Implemented (LC344#13), due 2005-10-06. 
?         2005-10-20: Bijan to contact WG to ask for contribution to 
                      test suite, due 2005-10-27. 
DONE [.5] 2005-10-27: Jonathan to schedule january/february meetings, 
                      due 2005-11-03. 
DONE [.4] 2005-10-27: Marsh to send tony's comments on behalf of working
                      group, due 2005-11-03. 
DONE [.3] 2005-10-27: Marsh to remind WG members of change in times, due
                      2005-11-03. 
?         2005-10-27: Umit to look at SOAP 1.1 binding whether soap 
                      action on response is prohibited or ignored (should 
                      be ignored), due 2005-11-03.

Current Editorial Action Items 
?         2005-07-21: Arthur to add stable identifiers for each 
                      assertion, due 2005-09-26. 
DONE [.6] 2005-09-26: editors to fix the first paragraph of section 4 
                      ... does not make sense at all right now. 
                      (LC344#5), due 2005-10-06. 
DONE [.6] 2005-09-26: Editors to add a sentence saying {address} is 
                      optional because it could be defined by other 
                      means, such as an WS-A endpoint reference or maybe
                      the scenario does not require an address. 
                      (LC344#13), due 2005-10-06. 
DONE [.6] 2005-09-26: Editors fix "Case Elements NOT cited" in 6.8.1.2 
                      header to be "Case of elements NOT cited" (LC345),
                      due 2005-10-06. 

Note: Editorial AIs associated with LC issues recorded at [.2]. 

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/actions_owner.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Nov/0000.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-cg/2005Oct/0001.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Nov/0001.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Nov/0012.html

Administrivia

the host sent a package with directions to all participants

<hugo> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/11/hf2f/

hugo: the directions are online at the given url

Marsh: sent a proposal for the January meeting to the list
... Wed and Thu telcon (Thu/Fri down under)
... starting one hour earlier than the regular concall
... no objections to adopting those times and days of the week
... exclude Jan 18/19 based on feedback
... Jan 11/12 conflicts with BPEL f2f in NC
... also push back on Jan 4/5
... proposal to adopt Jan 25/26
... no objections, Jan 25/26 adopted as the plan of record
... Feb meeting on 27/28

RDF publication

hugo: happening tomorrow

SPARQL WSDL 1.1 review

Marsh: asking for interest in providing feedback to the sparql wsdl 1.1 document
... we can either review it as a WG or have individuals provide comments
... no interest in the WG adopting this as a work item (lack of resources)

<Jonathan_Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to respond to SPARQL about WSDL 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/03-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

f2f agenda review

<dorchard> I won't be able to dialin for much of my wednesday night, thursday mid-day in japan.

Marsh: joint meeting schedule
... presentation for the benefit of the WG by the WSA folks on the WS-A WSDL binding
... then discussion of any async issues
... finally, two TAG-related issues

DaveO: the tag is saying that if you identify things by uri you get all the benefits of the web
... if you don't (eg EPR parameters), you may not
... the tag is starting to look into this, there are a few more things hidden in the issue
... originally issue brought to the tag was that the address you see may not be the final one
... the larger issue is about identifying state

Marsh: not much material yet for a concrete discussion

DaveO: the schedule of deliverables is not affected by the tag requests

hugo: is there a draft of the tag finding on state management?

DaveO: not yet, just a proposal for now

<Zakim> asir, you wanted to ask a question

asir: is there a specific request from the tag for the wsdl wg?

Marsh: no, there isn't
... other agenda changes
... roberto requested LC333 to be moved to Friday
... no objections, we'll do that
... for rechartering, asking for a straight time extension, with no substantial changes
... please talk to your AC rep about the patent policy change issue
... then LC304, several proposals available

hugo: improved own proposal to address some of the concerns raised

Marsh: LC345
... be ready to close this issue next week
... LC333
... proposal by roberto

describes his proposal

jacekk: raised the issue, likes the proposal

alternative is drop interfaceless bindings and require that an binding component contain a binding operation component for each operation in the bound interface

TomJ: asking for procedure to give a proxy for the CR vote

hugo: you are always free to give a proxy to anybody for any reason
... in this case, the default vote is "I want to go to CR"

Marsh: if you have concerns about going to CR, you should send mail beforehand
... if you have concerns about going to CR, you should send mail beforehand

test

test

Marsh: if you have concerns about going to CR, you should send mail beforehand
... other issues 344/353/357
... proposal from arthur on LC344
... proposal from arthur on LC353 just mailed to the list
... LC357 mostly editorial

<Arthur> I propose the following text to resolve LC 353 [1]:

<Arthur> "A valid WSDL 2.0 component model is a set of WSDL 2.0 components and properties that satisfy all the requirements given in this specification as indicated by keywords whose interprettation is defined by RFC 2119."

<Arthur> This definition should go after the first sentence of section 2 of Part 1 [2].

<Arthur> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/#LC353

<Arthur> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050803/#component_model

Marsh: on Fri afternoon, exit criteria and vote to CR

arthur: we need to complete the test suite (positive and negative tests)
... adding markup to the spec identifying all MUST and MUST NOT assertions

clarifications from the editors

Marsh: LC315 schema pattern
... proposal from hugo for a schema pattern for http headers
... proposal is adopted
... LC315 duplicate headers

hugo: when we changed the way the HTTP headers work, we forgot to change the IRI identification for these components
... proposal is to use wsdl.extension
... for this to work, we need to make sure that for each component we have at most one http header with a given name
... added this constraint to the spec

Marsh: is this a new issue or just editorial?

jacek: it's not purely editorial, since we are adding a restriction

Marsh: fix is approved with no objections
... fault propagation rulesets

arthur: FPRs are mentioned in part 1 and refer to part 2 definitions
... proposal is to amend part 1 so that it doesn't refer to specific FPRs from part 2
... also proposes to introduce IRIs for these FPRs

Marsh: do we really need new IRIs?

arthur: that would be more consistent with this being an extension point

Marsh: these IRIs would not appear in any document

arthur: they could be used by an organization that wants to refer to these rulesets in defining their own MEPs

<Zakim> JacekK, you wanted to point out RDF mapping does have uris for that

jacek: the RDF mapping has IRIs for these rulesets

arthur: in part 1 we would not be referring to any particular rulesets

hugo: how many IRIs are you proposing to add?

arthur: 3
... they would be used in the template for each MEP that uses them

Marsh: proposes using fragment identifiers

roberto: worried that using IRIs is a slippery slope towards a MEP definition language or having a MEP component

Marsh: will add this item (using IRIs or not for FPRs) to the agenda for next week
... arthur will go ahead and fix the references from part 1 to part 2
... last issue: What should be declared as a Fault in a WSDL

arthur: should mention this in the primer

Marsh: or should we mention that in the definition of fault
... will add this item to the agenda for the f2f

<Jonathan_Marsh> ACTION: Arthur to propose text for "What should be declared as a Fault in WSDL". [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/03-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]

<Jonathan_Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to add this as an issue. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/03-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Arthur to propose text for "What should be declared as a Fault in WSDL". [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/03-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Marsh to add this as an issue. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/03-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Marsh to respond to SPARQL about WSDL 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/03-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/11/03 17:43:30 $