WS Description WG

13 Jul 2006

See also: IRC log


TonyR, Arthur_Ryman, Jonathan_Marsh, Canon


implementer's notes

<TonyR> Arthur: if I am processing a WSDL document and encounter an extension I do not recognise, with wsdl:required=true, is the document invalid?

<TonyR> Tony & Jonathan: yes, it is invalid (in the context)

<TonyR> Arthur: if, on the other hand, it is marked wsdl:required=false, is it valid?

<TonyR> Tony & Jonathan: yes, it is valid (unless otherwise invalid)

<TonyR> Arthur: just deciding where to put the test cases

<TonyR> Arthur: might be a good idea to issue a warning when encountering a unrecognised extension (even with required=false)

<TonyR> action item Arthur test cases for message exchanges from a simple WSDL - done

<GlenD> hi Tony!

<scribe> scribe: Roberto

Jonathan: minutes are approved

review of action items

3.  Review of Action items [.1]. 

DONE      2006-06-01: [interop] Jonathan to add sorting of soap modules,
                      http/soap headers.
DUP       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.
DONE      2006-06-08: [interop] Arthur to write test cases for messages 
                      and message exchanges for a simple WSDL (eg: an 
                      echo web service).
DUP       2006-06-15: [interop] Jonathan to build a new XSLT to 
                      construct the validation reports. 
DONE      2006-07-06: [interop] Lawrence - violate operation style
DONE      2006-07-06: [interop] Youenn - define documents for stub 
?         2006-07-06: [interop] Jonathan - create validation-report
DUP       2006-07-06: [interop] John - resolve Woden component model
DONE      2006-07-06: [interop] Arthur - add xpaths for soap and http 
                      to document.
DONE      2006-07-06: [interop] Philippe - violate http binding
DONE      2006-07-06: [interop] Chathura - will do interop tests with 
                      Youenn and Lawrence.
DONE      2006-07-07: [interop] Arthur to commit patches from yesterday 
DONE      2006-07-07: [interop] Jonathan to fix Ant tasks for cm 
                      interchange model format 
DONE      2006-07-07: [interop] Jonathan to run WSDL XSLT over new 
                      test suite 
RETIRED   2006-07-07: [interop] John to contribute some test cases 
DONE      2006-07-07: [interop] John to resolve Woden problems in cm
                      interchange format 
?         2006-07-07: [interop] John to write spec text for transfer
NONSENSE  2006-07-07: [interop] to contribute test cases for assertions 
DONE      2006-07-07: [interop] Arthur to add TestMetadata.xml
                      validation to Ant scripts 
DONE      2006-07-07: [interop] Lawrence to create message test cases
                      based on interop log files
DONE      2006-07-07: [interop] Philippe to add stats on the assertion
                      coverage page 
?         2006-07-07: [interop] Arthur to include counts of good/bad
                      documents in document coverage report

?         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
DONE [.7] 2006-06-08: Gil to write a response to the raiser of CR47.
DONE [.6] 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 
DONE [.4] 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.
DONE [.5] 2006-06-29: Jacek to write a response to Eric correcting his
                      interpretation of the text as described in CR054.
?         2006-07-06: Glen to contribute some extension test cases.
DONE [.3] 2006-07-06: Roberto to propose text for CR044 and related 
                      interface-less binding text.
DONE      2006-07-06: Arthur to update cm interchange schema to make 
                      http cookies optional in the soap extension.
?         2006-07-06: John to write proposal for CR055 based on 
                      discussion and Jacek's email.

Current Editorial Action Items
 - none -

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/2006Jul/0046.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jul/0034.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jul/0035.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jul/0060.html


Jonathan: next telcon July 20th
... several people missing on July 27th
... not heard back on the SPARQL wsdl bug
... sees no reason for adding (d) to the issues list
... got query from WS-I BP asking for requiredness of targetNamespace in wsdl 2.0
... little traffic on the list on this issue

Arthur: related to code generation, where namespaces are mapped to packages
... also a good idea to avoid naming conflicts and simplify things
... WS-I should recommend it

Jacek: namespaces are goodness and WS-I should mandate them

interop event report

Arthur: very productive event, the test suite got x3 bigger
... also got better reporting tools
... need WG members to help fill the gaps in the test suite

Jonathan: test cases for broken assertions a priority

<Arthur> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/assertions-report.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8

<Arthur> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/

<Arthur> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/test-suite.xml

<Arthur> here's the woden site: http://incubator.apache.org/woden/

Jonathan: would like to have a new interop event in late September

issue CR044

Arthur: "implements" is a common word

TonyR: it's the endpoint that does the implementing, not the binding

Allen: how about "binds"?

Roberto: tried to avoid anything that conveyed a static relationship

<Jonathan> chad: new poll

<chad> new poll

<Jonathan> chad: question: terminology

<Jonathan> chad: option 1: applies

<Jonathan> chad: option 2: implements

<Jonathan> chad: option 3: binds

<Jonathan> Chad: option 1: is applied to

<Jonathan> chad: option 4: qualifies

<Jonathan> chad: question?

<Jonathan> chad: options?

<JacekK> vote: 1, 3

<Allen> vote: 3,1

<Arthur> vote: 3, 2, 1

<TonyR> vote: 4, 3, 1

<Gil> vote 4,3,1

<Jonathan> vote: 1, 2, 4, 3

<Gil> vote: 4,3,1

<youenn> vote: 1,2,3,4

vote: 1, 4, 2, 3

<Jonathan> chad, count

<chad> Question: terminology

<chad> Option 1: is applied to (4)

<chad> Option 2: implements (0)

<chad> Option 3: binds (2)

<chad> Option 4: qualifies (2)

<chad> 8 voters: Allen (3,1),Arthur (3,2,1),Gil (4,3,1),JacekK (1,3),Jonathan (1,2,4,3),Roberto (1,4,2,3),TonyR (4,3,1),youenn (1,2,3,4)

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

<chad> Round 2: First elimination round.

<chad> Eliminating candidadates without any votes.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 2.

<chad> Round 3: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.

<chad> Tie at round 2 between 3, 4.

<chad> Tie at round 1 between 3, 4.

<chad> Tie broken randomly.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 4.

<chad> Round 4: Tie when choosing candidate to eliminate.

<chad> Tie at round 3 between 1, 3.

<chad> Candidate 3 has the fewest votes at round 2.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 3.

<chad> Candidate 1 is elected.

<chad> Winner is option 1 - is applied to

Jonathan: option 1 wins


jacek: wants to avoid interpreting these properties as component properties
... the proposed text doesn't do that
... describing his proposal (.7)

<scribe> ACTION: Roberto to produce an updated proposal for CR044 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]


Roberto: that was the intent of the spec

Jonathan: no objections to approving the proposal

RESOLUTION: proposed solution to cr070 accepted


Roberto: proposes to close with no action

RESOLUTION: closed with no change to the spec


Jonathan: first part of the message is CR055

Arthur: the property won't be present unless the extension is known

Jonathan: so this issue seems to be a duplicate of CR050
... last part of the issue is a typo

Arthur: it's already fixed

RESOLUTION: close CR072 as duplicate


Arthur: the rule was that we wouldn't duplicate constraints already enforced by the (normative) schema
... we could also leave them in and add them to a special "enforced" class

Roberto: prefers consistency

TonyR: +1

Jacek: Remove "MUST"

Arthur: if you are constructing a component model without a document, there are many more constraints you risk violating

Jonathan: minimal change is to remove the assertion markup as change "MUST" to "is"

(actually, "MUST be" to "is")

RESOLUTION: close CR074 and fix those assertions by removing the assertion markup and changing "MUST be" to "is"


Arthur: proposal is to split sentences so that each MUST is its own assertion

Jonathan: #1 is a small punctuation change (adding some commas)
... #1 accepted
... #2 is a single sentence with two MUST and MUST NOT but one assertion
... #2, #3 accepted
... for #4 the proposal is to split the first sentence in two and drop the last one
... #4 approved
... #5 is simply splitting in two
... #5 approved

RESOLUTION: close CR073, accept all changes and additionally split the first sentence in item #4 of the proposal


Jonathan: #1 proposal is changing the assertion markup

Arthur: make "MAY" into a "may"
... and add "Note that" at the beginning

Jonathan: #1 adopted with Arthur's amendment
... #2 is rewording the part with "MAY" and make the other sentence a separate assertion
... #2 approved

Roberto: last bullet point in 4.2 has two assertions too

Jonathan: we could insert "furthermore" before the "MUST NOT" and mark it up as two assertions

RESOLUTION: close CR075, approve the suggestions with Arthur's amendment, have the editors also fix the last bullet in 4.2

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Roberto to produce an updated proposal for CR044 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/07/13 16:33:30 $