See also: IRC log
Review of Action items [.1]. [Interop] ? 2006-11-30: [interop] John Kaputin to create a test case with "required=false". DONE [.4] 2006-11-30: [interop] Jonathan to allow different extensions per implementation. DONE [.3] 2006-11-30: [interop] Jonathan to move Echo-2G into bad bucket. [WG] ? 2006-09-21: Jonathan to check periodically that SPARQL has added schemaLocation. ? 2006-10-12: pdowney to review the Schema WG note on versioning in 1.1. ? 2006-11-30: Jonathan will propose a plan for publishing component model interchange format as a note. DONE [.5] 2006-11-30: Jonathan to take the proposal to the CG that we can take the work, as long as our charter is extended and as long as we can get our primary deliverables done first. ? 2006-11-30: Charlton to review WS-Policy LC. DONE [.6] 2006-11-30: Jonathan to look at whether WS-I BP profiles Detail children (to only one). DONE [.7] 2006-11-30: Jonathan will draft a paragraph to talk about what parts of SOAP we don't support. Current Editorial Action Items 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/cr-issues/actions_owner.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Nov/0137.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Dec/0000.html [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-cg/2006Dec/0003.html [.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Nov/att-0136/20061130-ws -desc-minutes.html#item14, 5th line [.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Dec/0017.html
Jonathan: arthur suggested to add canonicalization for WSDL1.1 component designators
Arthur: If the WG agrees, we should recommend to add a canonicalization to be consistent with WSDL2.0
Asir: we could open a formal
issue to th WS-Policy WG ?
... I can open it.
<scribe> ACTION: Asir to open a WS-Policy issue and link it with CR80 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/07-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
Jonathan: jason says that he
would like to extend the rpc signature but agrees the
suggestion is bad timing
... can we accept this response and leave the spec as it is?
TomJ: we do not prevent what he wants, toolkits may modify the rpc signature
RESOLUTION: close CR082 and mark it as accepted
Jonathan: CR092/CR092 is about
soap usage that WSDL2.0/SOAP binding does not allow to
... I sent a partial list of soap1.2 functionalities that cannot be described with our soap1.2 binding
Tom: we should say that the soap1.2 fault details element will contain an element, but may contain other stuff that is not described
Jonathan: proposal is to add the
list of SOAP functionalities that cannot be described and add
... can we close these two issues with this resolution ?
RESOLUTION: close CR92 and CR93 according proposal
Jonathan: CR096 seems editorial
Arthur: I will check the source and let's move on
Jonathan: issue CR095 is about
wsoap:header@element. Being of type QName, it prevents the #any
... Why should we allow it?
... proposal is #any is not allowed as it has not a clear utility
<asir> +1 Jonathan's suggestion
Arthur: It seems that we are not
generating message assertions. We need another assertion
... we could also have one assertion table, with a "assertion type" column
... as a quick fix, I will add another table but I prefer to have one unique table that combines all current tables
Jonathan: arthur proposal for CR094 is to add another assertion table
RESOLUTION: CR094 closed with arthur proposal
back to CR095
Jonathan: #any is a no op.
is closed with no action, jonathan to answer to
... close CR096 by removing the cited assertion
Jonathan: it seems that this
assertion is redundant with schema checks
... the order of the desc. children is not captured by the schema. This assertion is about the order.
Roberto: we come up with this schema, looser than expected because of non determinism issues
Jonathan: proposal is close with no action
RESOLUTION: Close CR097 with no action
Jonathan: Is the cited assertion already covered by other assertions, as suggested?
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to look at CR098 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/07-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
Jonathan: similar to CR098
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to look at CR099 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/07-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Jonathan: Import-0001 and Import-0070 seem to adress the same thing, unless any subtlety
Arthur: we should leave the text and retain only one of the two assertions.
RESOLUTION: Close CR100 by dropping Import-0001 assertion (but leaving the text)
<Arthur> I just committed the fix to CR094
Jonathan: The three assertions seem redundant
Proposal is to keep the assertion in section 121900 and remove the other assertions
RESOLUTION: Close CR101 according this proposal
Arthur: we should rewrite this
assertion and remove the use of "imported components"
... we want to say that we import a namespace.
... proposal is to rewrite Import-0003 sentence and remove this assertion
RESOLUTION: close CR102 according proposal
Tony: the second assertion is not complete. We should remove the second assertion and fix the wording.
Jonathan: do we want to remove
the sentence or improve it?
... the proposal is to take the last sentence of the section 126.96.36.199 and move it to section 3.1.2
<Jonathan> reword = reference Schema-0016
Jonathan: in addition, remove the assertion Types-1300001 and rewording it to add a reference to Schema-0016
RESOLUTION: close CR103 according proposal
RESOLUTION: Close Issue CR104 and remove Description-0024
Jonathan: proposal is to remove assertion markup from 1204002
RESOLUTION: close CR105 by dropping InterfaceOperation-1204002
Jonathan: drop InterfaceOperation-1204003
RESOLUTION: Close CR106 by dropping InterfaceOperation-1204003
Roberto: we could test the case of two styles that are contradictory
Jonathan: but we rely on
... proposal is to close CR107 with no action and add a test case
RESOLUTION: close CR107 with no action
<Roberto> 14: !unique => present <=> ! ! absent
<Roberto> 6: ! absent => unique
<Roberto> so they are logically equivalent, no?
<Roberto> oops, I mixed up the 14/6 labels
<Roberto> the first one I wrote is 6, the second one 14
<Roberto> I'd assert that they are equivalent and 6 should be removed, as it is the most poorly worded of the two
<scribe> ACTION: Amy to write a proposal for CR108 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/07-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]