W3C

WSD F2F Yokohama @ Hitachi 2005-11-10

10 Nov 2005

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present:
Charlton Baretto, Adobe Systems
Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet, Canon
Hugo Haas, W3C
Anish Karmarkar, Oracle
Jonathan Marsh, Chair (Microsoft)
Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
Gilbert Pilz, BEA Systems
Tony Rogers, Computer Associates
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Umit Yalcinalp, SAP
Regrets
Rebecca Bergersen, IONA Technologies
Tom Jordahl, Macromedia
Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP
Phone
Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Jacek Kopecky, DERI Innsbruck at the Leopold-Franzens-Universitšt Innsbruck, Austria
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
David Orchard, BEA Systems
Chair
Jonathan Marsh
Scribe
Arthur, charlton

Contents


<Arthur> scribe: Arthur

<Jonathan_Marsh> scribe list: arthur, charlton, umit, tony

Arthur to look for simplification options for

comment 12 of 344. (LC344#12), due 2005-10-06.

<scribe> DONE: LC344#12

Umit to look at SOAP 1.1 binding whether soap action on response is prohibited or ignored (should be ignored), due 2005-11-03.

<scribe> DONE: No action required.

Date: 2005-11-10

<hugo> ACTION: Hugo to fix language "Binding component assigns quoted string" in SOAP 1.1 binding [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

Arthur to propose text for "What should be declared as a Fault in WSDL", due 2005-11-10.

<scribe> DONE: This action has been done and is issue LC 361 which will be discussed later.

Assertion markup

Assertion markup has been defined.

We need help in marking up the document with assertions. Volunteers? Awkward silence.

<scribe> ACTION: Hugo will start adding assertions to Part 2. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]

Use numeric range 5000-9999 for Part 2.

Use 0001-4999 for Part 1.

Arthur: I have received interest from a non-W3C member to help with the Test Suite.

Hugo: They can participate as an invited expert.
... Don't we need to complete the enumeration of the assertions for CR?

Jonathan: Not necessarily.

Announcement - RDF Mapping Published!

Jonathan: Please ask interested parties to review the RDF maaping.

Rechartering

Jonathan: We won't be in REC status by January. I will ask for a 12 month extension but not for a patent policy recharter.
... Any change in deliverables will require acceptance of new patent policy which might inhibit some members to continue. Any requirements to adopt the new patent policy?

No requirements for the new patent policy were expressed.

LC304: Definition of a IANA media type token

see http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC304

Hugo: this issue was raised in the context of describing URIs on the Flickr Web site. I have a proposed solution.

<Jonathan_Marsh> Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Oct/0063.html

Hugo reviews proposal described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Oct/0063.html

<dorchard> I'm signing off for a few hours.

Much discussion of Hugo's proposal but no concensus.

Jonathan: Who is interested in resolving this?

Paul: We won't pass the "giggle" test if WSDL 2.0 can't describe flickr

Jonathan: FYI, Gil is now an official member of the WG and can voice opinions.

<hugo> Another proposal I made: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Oct/0046.html

<Jonathan_Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Oct/0046.html

Break

Resume

Jonathan: We have 3 alternatives to resolve this issue.

1. Hugo's simplified proposal.

2. Hugo's earlier proposal- 2 properties + named serialization + new binary serialization

3. Honouring expected content type in schema as per Note

<Jonathan_Marsh> 0. Do nothing

<pauld> chad, ping

<Jonathan_Marsh> chad, new vote

<chad> new poll

<Jonathan_Marsh> option 0: do nothing

<Jonathan_Marsh> option 1: hugo's simplified proposal

<Jonathan_Marsh> option 2: two properties (hugo's earlier proposal) + binary serialization

<Jonathan_Marsh> option 3: honoring the expected content type from the media type note.

<umit> vote: 3, 2, 0

<Jonathan_Marsh> chad, option 0: do nothing

<Jonathan_Marsh> chad, option 1: hugo's simplified proposal

<Jonathan_Marsh> chad, option 2: two properties (hugo's earlier proposal) + binary serialization

<Jonathan_Marsh> chad, option 3: honoring the expected content type from the media type note.

vote: 1, 0

<TonyR> vote: abstain

<JacekK> vote: abstain

<pauld> vote: 1

<gpilz> vote: abstain

<hugo> vote: 1, 2, 3, 0

<umit> chad: 3, 2, 0

<youenn> vote: 2,1

<jjm> chad: 2, 1

<charlton> vote: 1, 2, 3, 0

<alewis> vote: 1, 2, 0

<Jonathan_Marsh> vote: 1,2

<Jonathan_Marsh> vote: glen: 2, 3, 1, 0

<anish> vote: abstain

<Jonathan_Marsh> chad, count

<chad> Question: unknown

<chad> Option 0: do nothing (0)

<chad> Option 1: hugo's simplified proposal (6)

<chad> Option 2: two properties (hugo's earlier proposal) + binary serialization (3)

<chad> Option 3: honoring the expected content type from the media type note. (1)

<chad> 14 voters: alewis (1, 2, 0) , anish () , Arthur (1, 0) , charlton (1, 2, 3, 0) , glen (2, 3, 1, 0) , gpilz () , hugo (1, 2, 3, 0) , JacekK () , jjm (2, 1) , Jonathan_Marsh (1, 2) , pauld (1) , TonyR () , umit (3, 2, 0) , youenn (2, 1)

<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.

<chad> Candidate 1 is elected.

<chad> Winner is option 1 - hugo's simplified proposal

<anish> chad: details

<anish> chad, details

<umit> I really do not like this solution at all.

<umit> Bad bandaid.

RESOLUTION: LC304 closed with Hugo's simplied proposal

LC345: POST & application/x-www-form-urlencoded serialization

see: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC345

<hugo> the table I came up with: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/09/wsdl20-adjuncts.html#_http_serialization

<hugo> Proposal is: Hugo's proposal + Charlton's proposal + add disabling attribute for {/} capability

RESOLUTION: Proposal accepted.

Adjourned for lunch.

Back at 1:30PM

<Jonathan_Marsh> Resuming

<charlton> scribe: charlton

Splitting out the HTTP binding

Paul: How much work would it be, and what are the dependencies

Hugo: Editorially it is easy, take the section and put it elsewhere

Marsh: Complicates CR test cases as well
... Do we believe that we've made changes substantial enough to invalidate anyone's review (requiring another LC)?
... If splitting out HTTP Binding were trivial, would it be desirable to split it out and go through another LC?

Hugo: HTTP Binding has been reviewed by a number of people. If it goes to CR, people will certainly have a close look at it, and if we rediscover problems at this stage, then we can split, fix the problems, and go through another LC
... Speaking against splitting out HTTP Binding

Youenn: We spoke against it this morning. Why do it?

No interest in splitting out HTTP Binding at this point

Issue LC344

Marsh: Administrative - checking to ensure we've performed our due diligence

Proposed Text for LC344#5: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Oct/0040.html

Ãœmit: I have a friendly amendment for this: It does not affect the messages on the wire

Arthur: The spec does not speak to programming models at all.

Glen: Does not say how the client interacts with a WSDL, but how it interacts with service

<uyalcina> Proposed sentence: This additional information in no way affects the messages exchanged with the service and ...

Glend: Purely for readability, I'd like a change in the 2nd sentence....

Marsh: That is purely editorial

<GlenD> My friendly amendment is s/by the interface message reference components of the/in/

Glen and Umit's friendly amendements are accepted

<GlenD> ("by" is fine too instead of "in" - either way)

<GlenD> Suggestion - s/by its {style} property./by its {style} property. Note that if any of these specifications are mutually incompatible, the document is invalid./

Arthur: We're trying to get rid of language that states that this is an error. If a document has one or more styles, it must satisfy each style. We can look at messages and determine whether it uses mutually incompatible styles. We can look at a message's use of styles, but not compare two styles.

Glen: Validity is dependent upon whether or not you understand the URI

Arthur: We're looking at a doc that we've been given, and it is up to the author to determine whether it is valid. With extensions, there are additional obligations on the client, but outside of that, the obligation for validity is the author's
... It is not up to the consumer to validate the document

Umit: We had earlier said that a publisher of a document is responsible for validity
... Arthur is trying to capture this in this language
... I would not like to see invalid documents indicated by style

Arthur: This text references URIs - they need to be changed to IRIs

<GlenD> If no Operation component can simultaneously satisfy the set of such styles, the document is invalid.

<TonyR> If no Operation can simultaneously satisfy all of the styles, the document is invalid.

<Arthur> I agree that any subset of styles could be mutually incompatible, not just pairwise.

<TonyR> If no Operation component can simultaneously satisfy all of the styles, the document is invalid.

LC344#5: Agree to the following changes:

<Arthur> 1. umit's suggestion

2. glen's friendly amendment

<Arthur> 2. glen's suggestion

<Arthur> 3. tony's

<Arthur> 4. change URI to IRI

1. umit's friendly amendment

2. glen's friendly amendment

3. tony's friendly amendment

4. update URI to IRI

Umit: Can you write a style that applies only to faults? A fault style?

Arthur: Why can't you do an in fault in HTTP?
... Does the HTTP Binding only work for certain maps?

Hugo: Yes

Should Operation Styles Apply to Faults?

(follow on to LC344#5)

Marsh: Is this an easy fix? Just add "...or fault..." somewhere?

Umit: I don't think anyone wanted to prevent styles to be applied to faults

Glen: I'd rather that the XML is constrained to something data bindable...

Marsh: We should just be able to add "fault" to this text

Arthur: As written, it seems like a predicate on element reference, but actually is only for message references

Add fault to the text, and have some editorial cleanup of the text

<Arthur> Section 2.4.1.2 needs to be amended to include Faults and to not just be applied to the {element declarations} but to the actual components since the style MAY be dependent on direction or possibly sequence

Issue LC353

What is a valid WSDL component model?

Primarily editorial issue

Relates to conformance section of the spec

TonyR: Need to correct "interprettion" -> "interpretation"

Issue LC357

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/#LC357

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005Nov/0001.html

Additional comments by Martin Duerst

Proposal w/b to add: "Note: The xs:anyURI type is defined so that xs:anyURI values are essentially IRIs [RFC 3987]. The conversion from xs:anyURI values to an actual URI is via an escaping procedure defined by [XLink 1.0], which is identical in most respects to IRI Section 3.1. (The only difference being that IRI defines handling of non-Unicode encoded byte sequences, considerations which do not affect this document directly.)"

[Reviewing comments from Martin Duerst]

For incompatibilities between URIs and IRIs, should we:

1) Allow the characters and specify escaping them

2) Only allow the subset of IRIs compatible with URIs?

3) Only allow some of the characters that are compatible across each layer

4) Apply 1-3 as appropriate/necessary

To resolve...

Add note plus a reference/list of constrained characters

Add the note, and the following: "For interoperability, authors are advised not to use these characters, which are allowed in IRIs, but not URIs."

<Jonathan_Marsh> My proposal:

<Jonathan_Marsh> Note: The xs:anyURI type is defined so that xs:anyURI values are essentially IRIs [RFC 3987]. The conversion from xs:anyURI values to an actual URI is via an escaping procedure defined by [XLink 1.0], which is identical in most respects to IRI Section 3.1. For interoperability, WSDL authors are advised to avoid the characters "<", ">", '"', space,

<Jonathan_Marsh> "{", "}", "|", "\", "^", and "`"

<Jonathan_Marsh> , which are allowed by the xs:anyURI type but disallowed in IRIs.

And action to take this to the CG

LC357 proposal - Jonathan's proposal above

<Jonathan_Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to take the IRI issue to the CG. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]

break for 15 minutes (15.35 JST)

Back from break

Issue LC360

Close LC360

<Jonathan_Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Nov/0017.html

Arthur's proposal

Marsh: Best practices, not a prescription
... Modulo minor editorial issues, is this a reasonably correct addition to the spec?

[LC361]

<scribe> Closed

Issue LC362

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC362

Jacek: This is an editorial change....

<JacekK> as long as the component model is not affected

Marsh: Options: 1) Close with no action, 2) Arthur's proposal, 3) Jacek's proposal

Arthur: Friendly amendment to Jacek's proposal to include URIs for MEPs

<alewis> umit, i have two reactions: one is that everything else mostly has an IRI, the other is that we actually use those IRIs elsewhere in the spec.

<JacekK> the proposal, as I believe it is: add fault propagation rules IRIs, change MEP and op style IRIs to be spec references

<alewis> i'm fairly indifferent. i don't see this being terribly significant either way, and can live with any of the outcomes with no difficulty.

<umit> k

<alewis> so if someone else feels strongly enough, i can go with that.

<umit> i could not remember why we did not go down that path before since we discussed all this in the MEP tf a looong time ago

<alewis> umit, i don't recall that we discussed the issue of identifying fault propagation rulesets, and i didn't remember much discussion over the format of mep URIs (in fact, i don't think i remember any)

Poll

<Arthur> amy - do you have an opinion on uris for fault rules?

<alewis> i'm fine with whichever way.

Poll: Adopt Arthur's proposal: 8 YES 1 NO - Proposal accepted

Jonathan is off; Hugo taking over for chairing the rest of today's meeting

Glen to take an action to write a proposal to resolve this issue for tomorrow

Hugo: Only substantive issues left: LC362 and LC333
... Adjourn until tomorrow

Double binding of an operation issue in SPARQL Protocol

Jacek: Double binding of an operation issue

Discussion of this by the group

<hugo> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-protocol-20050914/#query-bindings-http

Hugo: The problem - we have a binding operation, and the same operation is bound twice.

Arthur: We know this to be illegal

Hugo: We need to write to the Data Access WG, adding a comment toward this

Paul formally apologises for this :-D

<Arthur> The SPARQL example violates Section 2.11.1: For each Binding Operation component in the {binding operations} property of a Binding component, the {interface operation} property MUST be unique. That is, one cannot define multiple bindings for the same operation within a given Binding component.

<alewis> bye!

<scribe> ACTION: Glen to write a proposal toward LC362 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]

<scribe> ACTION: Paul write to the DAWG re: binding operation twice [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]

Hugo: Now we can really adjourn

<Arthur> The correct way to describe that service is with two bindings: one for GET and one for POST.

<hugo> Chair: Jonathan Marsh, Hugo Haas

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Glen to write a proposal toward LC362 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Hugo to fix language "Binding component assigns quoted string" in SOAP 1.1 binding [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Hugo will start adding assertions to Part 2. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Marsh to take the IRI issue to the CG. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Paul write to the DAWG re: binding operation twice [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/10-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/11/10 08:42:06 $