W3C

WS Description WG telcon

26 Jan 2006

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Charlton Baretto, Adobe Systems
Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet, Canon
Hugo Haas, W3C
Tom Jordahl, Macromedia
Anish Karmarkar, Oracle
Jacek Kopecky, DERI Innsbruck at the Leopold-Franzens-Universitšt Innsbruck, Austria
Bozhong Lin, IONA Technologies
Jonathan Marsh, Co-chair/Microsoft
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
Vivek Pandey, Sun Microsystems
Gilbert Pilz, BEA Systems
Tony Rogers, Co-chair/Computer Associates
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Umit Yalcinalp, SAP
Regrets
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP
Chair
Marsh
Scribe
pauld

Contents


<scribe> Scribe: pauld

minutes from last week approved

Action Items

pauld: AI for versioning in PVS, paul feels deeply embarrassed

Review of Action items [.1]. 

?         2005-07-21: Pauld to write a proposal for a working group 
                      report for requirements for schema evolution 
                      following closure of LC124 
?         2005-10-20: Kendall to contact DAWG to ask for contribution to
                      test suite, due 2005-10-27. 
?         2005-11-10: Marsh to take the IRI issue to the CG, due
                      2005-11-16. 
DONE [.3] 2005-12-08: Amy to propose text warning about the knots one 
                      can tie oneself up in when writing an extension. 
?         2005-01-05: Jacek to detail (e.g. in a list) what constraints
                      of the component model are not enforced by the WSDL
                      ontology. 
?         2005-01-05: Glen to write an outline for a test service and
                      send it to the list.
DONE      2006-01-12: Arthur to come up with an allocation for reviewing
                      assertions. 
DONE      2006-01-12: Marsh to send CR announcement to SOAPBuilders. 
DONE [.4] 2006-01-12: Hugo to find uses of x-www... media types in W3C Recs. 
DONE [.6] 2006-01-12: Jacek to investigate with SWDBP WG the status of 
                      part-whole ontology. 
DONE [.5] 2006-01-12: JacekK to contact XMLP WG on blessing 
                      http://www.w3.org/2005/10/wsdl- 
                      rdf#SOAPMessageExchangePattern to point.

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/2006Jan/0046.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jan/0028.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jan/0051.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jan/0052.html

Assertion Review

Arthur: expounds on assertions task, assertions go beyond constraints imposed by our schema. looking for one test case which voilates each assertion
... working through the document/table, I've assigned identifiers for each assertion
... would like people to review the review table - assignment of sections to WG members

<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jan/0067.html

<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jan/0059.html

<horse-trading of who gets which assertion>

Arthur: needs doing ahead of exiting CR, what's our schedule for exiting CR?

Jonathan: entirely depends upon implementations

Arthur: suggest we aim for Cannes

Jonathan: will backup Sanjiva, Charlton to backup DaveO
... encourages WG to look at this sooner than later

Administrivia

Jonathan: hotel registration extended

Jonanthan: three items accepted for the TP day, Chad (possiblyx2) and the abstract on notation
... Arthur running a panel on formal methods

Jonathan: where next after Cannes? East Coast is next in our rotation. Unclear on Addressing schedule
... Mark Nottingham is leaving BEA and resigning as WS-Addressing Chair ..
... maybe our May meeting could be combined with an interop event for CR testing

Hugo: rechartering - the working group is in the Last Chance saloon, unless things change drastically, the team is only willing to extend resources for one year, subject to objection from the AC of course

Jonathan: of course closing the group would leave the CR documents in dormant mode which could be recreated at a later date.

Hugo: if progress is good, and we're in PR, then things may change

Tom: we're not done in a year, then it's over, we're done for!

Jonathan: notes there's a chicken and egg, even with addressing which has significant interest, finding implementations within the CR time frame is problematic

Hugo: we want the working group to succeed, so giving the WG a year to get out of CR is generous
... has heard strong pushback from at least one of the members of this WG against downgrading work on the RDF mapping

Jonathan: to be clear push back is against delviering RDF mapping as a rec-track document, not stopping work

Jacek: working group could be kept going for longer to complete the RDF mapping

TonyR: doesn't RDF mapping not reaching PR prevents us going to Rec with the main documents?

Hugo: only if there was a dependency from the core documents to the RDF mapping, I don't think there is such a dependecny, so no
... however our contract with the AC is to deliver the RDF mapping

Jonathan: reconsidering how to manage "good standing" in the face of working group members not interested in working on the RDF mapping

Jacek: suggests an RDF mapping TF

Jonathan: could alternate with the main WG in this slot as our workload lessens during CR

Charlton: alternating seems fine

Jonathan: prefers to be more ad-hoc than one-week-on-one-week-off as issues may arrise as a result of implementation experience
... let's form an RDF task force, I'm happy to chair, starting next week
... everyone is invited to join
... given we'll be working without a charter, that seems fine
... does anyone have feedback on the charter renewal they'd like to have on the record now?

Hugo: will be presenting this plan to the WS-CG next week. Message to the WG is to start CR testing and make progress!

CR002

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR002

<Jonathan> <note><p>

<Jonathan> Authors of extensibility elements which may manifest as properties of

<Jonathan> the <comp>Description</comp> component should be alert to the impact of

<Jonathan> imports on their extensions, or their extensions on imports. It is not

<Jonathan> possible, within the component model, to define extensions which have

<Jonathan> an effective scope equal to the scope of a containing file. Extensions

<Jonathan> which modify the behavior of the components contained in a description

<Jonathan> may therefore unexpectedly modify the behavior of components in

<Jonathan> imported descriptions as well, unless proper care is taken. Users of

<Jonathan> such extension elements should also be aware of the potential pitfalls.

<Jonathan> </p></note>

RESOLUTION: close CR002 with Amy's proposal

<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jan/0028.html

CR003

Tom: surprised by the analysis

Jonathan: Hugo's analysis should provide sufficient reason

RESOLUTION: CR003 is closed with no action based on Hugo's analysis

CR004

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR004

Jonathan: appInfo for WSDL?

Jacek: we have general extensibility to provide such extensibility.

Jonathan: and our component model can handle such extensions

Arthur: agrees with Jacek. Schema content model isn't open like WSDL, that's why they provide appInfo

Jonathan: the are more constrained

Arthur: anyone know of using appInfo in schema?

Jonathan: we use it

Roberto: JAXB provides binding information in appInfo
... could be done with general extensibility

Jonathan: does the constraint add value?

Umit, Roberto: no, what possible value could it add?

RESOLUTION: close CR004 with no action

CR005

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR005

builtin schema types

Arthur: has responded - suggests including predefined types in the component model, either a full set by default, or the smaller set we reference

Jonathan: does it make comparing two component models?

Arthur: we don't define equivalence of component models, just components
... top level components may be compared to detect confilicts following includes, done recursively below that
... we don't comapre description components, the rule to spell out which types are defaulted would solve the equivalence problem

Umit: clarification - they're all, always there?

Arthur: yes, there's about 20-30

<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to make a proposal for CR005 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

CR006

RESOLUTION: CR006 closed as editorial, Arthur already fixed

CR007

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR007

<scribe> ACTION: Roberto to look into CR007 Assertion required for property <constraint> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]

CR008

RESOLUTION: closed with action for Asir to make a proposal

<scribe> ACTION: Asir to make a proposal for CR008 - SOAP 1.1 Binding: example [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]

Jonathan: RDF mapping issues to be discussed next week
... use the next 30 mins to work on your implementations ;-)

ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Arthur to make a proposal for CR005 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Asir to make a proposal for CR008 - SOAP 1.1 Binding: example [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Roberto to look into CR007 Assertion required for property <constraint> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/26-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/01/26 18:09:18 $