See also: IRC log
<scribe> ACTION: Lawrence - violate operation style assertions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/06-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: Youenn - define documents for stub generation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/06-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan - create validation-report stylesheet [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/06-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: John - resolve Woden component model interchange [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/06-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur - add xpaths for soap and http to document coverage report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/06-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: Philippe - violate http binding assertions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/06-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
<scribe> ACTION: Chathura - will do interop tests with Youenn and Lawrence [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/06-ws-desc-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> scribe: Arthur
Date: July 6, 2006
Interop
? 2006-06-01: [interop] Jonathan to add sorting of soap modules,
http/soap headers.
? 2006-06-01: [interop] John to file issue whether {rpc
signature} should be OPTIONAL (4.1.1).
? 2006-06-08: [interop] Arthur to create a testcase for
an unknown extension wsdl:required=true.
? 2006-06-08: [interop] Arthur to create a testcase for
an unknown extension wsdl:required=false.
? 2006-06-08: [interop] Arthur to write test cases for messages
and message exchanges for a simple WSDL (eg: an
echo web service).
? 2006-06-15: [interop] Jonathan to build a new XSLT to
construct the validation reports.
WG
? 2005-07-21: Pauld to write a proposal for a working group
report for requirements for schema evolution
following closure of LC124
? 2006-03-30: Marsh to make XSLT improvements for RDF
publication.
RETIRED 2006-04-20: Glen to flesh out a model for runtime test
scenarios.
? 2006-06-08: Gil to write a response to the raiser of CR47.
? 2006-06-15: Jonathan to file the issue rpc signature issue.
? 2006-06-15: Arthur to update CR022 proposal.
? 2006-06-15: Arthur to propose part 1 text about REQUIRED
extensions.
DONE [.3] 2006-06-29: Charlton to update his proposal for CR044 based on
the language correction suggested by Jacek per
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jun/0026.html.
? 2006-06-29: Jacek to draft a response to Eric re: CR052
explaining that this represents a new use case,
and that we will not be able to address this as
such in the spec, but that it can be addressed as
an additional extension...
? 2006-06-29: Philippe to write up recommended text to clarify
the issue in CR53.
? 2006-06-29: Jacek to write a response to Eric correcting his
interpretation of the text as described in CR054.
jonathan: there will be a telecon
next two weeks to clear up open issues
... assume august holiday from telecons - but still hold
implementor telecons
... maybe no telecon July 27 due to potential absence of
Jonathan and Tony
<plh> Arthur: we have indeed shown interop. Canon and Apache implementation are talking to each other. We have recorded message logs.
<plh> ... we now have reports that show all the covered assertions.
<plh> Arthur: lots of red in the assertion report.
<plh> ... please contribute that violate the assertions.
<plh> ... Jonathan will check the results produced by the implementations with the expected ones.
<plh> ... we only have two MEPs implemented. Anybody contemplating doing the others?
<plh> ... for the remainder of the events, we'll keep focusing on test coverage
arthur: red = shame
<plh> Tony: why 2 or 3 is yellow?
<plh> Jonathan: we could put green if >= 1. no yellow
glen: any cases for extensions and features/property?
arthur: one for Feature, 0 for Property, all the Part 2 extensions
glen: will contribute some later
<scribe> ACTION: Glen to contribute some extension test cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/06-ws-desc-minutes.html#action08]
<GlenD> +1, sounds right
<GlenD> oh right, this discussion
<GlenD> +1 add to Interchange Format, -1 add to Component Model, I think
jonathan: recall that we resolved CR050 with no action since wsdlx is a "characteristic" of the implementation so the wsdlx:safety property gets added to all Operation components even if there is no markup in the documents
<Roberto> I agree with Glen
<JacekK> me too agrees with Glen
jonathan: there was a proposal to add {extensions} to Description component
<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jun/0034.html
Jonathan: make this CR069
glen: agree to putting {extensions} in the component model interchange format put not in the component model
jacek: nice to have {extensions} in component model since it is api guidance
roberto: agree with glen re interchange format
<GlenD> +q
tony: {extension} useful for caching documents too
roberto: {extensions} not an intrinsic part of the component model
glen: +1 to roberto, BUT make be useful if a spec used that property, i.e. it needed to refer to that extension
arthur: need to know what extensions are in effect in order to decide validity of the component model
jonathan: a spec and just refer
to another spec, doesn't need an explicit property
... the infoset spec started as a library of terms, not a data
model
<Zakim> JacekK, you wanted to suggest trying to ask for objections one way or the other and just do what doesn't get objections
jacek: this is a minor issue so let's vote
tony: we need to be able to state component model validity so need to know extensions
jonathan: any objections to the
status quo?
... no objections
... any objections to adding it?
glen: yes
roberto: yes
jonathan: RESOLUTION: closed with no action
arthur: {safety} may not be present if the wsdlx is not "engaged"
<GlenD> Incidentally, I think this issue is fairly clear cut, and the problem is that we don't have a notion of "processor" and "engaged extensions".
<GlenD> Any extension that you choose to have "engaged" in your environment may well add any properties it wants to the component model, regardless of what is or is not present in the actual markup. IMHO, of course.
<GlenD> It's up to the extension writers to do a good job at specifying how and when properties should be added/mutated.
<Zakim> JacekK, you wanted to suggest moving to CR044 discussion, will have to leave in 10 min and to suggest moving to CR044 discussion after this item, will have to leave in 10 min
RESOLUION: close with no action
<JacekK> my version of CR44 writeup: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jul/0014.html
arthur: by "engaged" I mean supported in the component model
Jonathan: can be close this as editorial or do we need to see final text?
tony: i'd like to see the text
<scribe> ACTION: Roberto to propose text for CR044 and related interface-less binding text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/06-ws-desc-minutes.html#action09]
<Jonathan> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR067
Arthur: we should split the definition of the properties and their occurance, like XSD particles
Jonathan: I propose we just clarify this in the SOAP binding, i.e. say that the HTTP properties occur when the transport is HTTP
RESOLUTION: Accept Jonathan's proposal
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to update cm interchange schema to make http cookies optional in the soap extension [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/06-ws-desc-minutes.html#action10]
Arthur: the spec only defines a few serializations but doesn't prevent others so I suggest we close this with no action
RESOLUTION: close with no action
<Jonathan> jacek's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jun/0032.html
<scribe> ACTION: John to write proposal for CR055 based on discussion and Jacek's email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/06-ws-desc-minutes.html#action11]