See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: TonyR
Minutes of FtF approved
? 2005-07-21: Pauld to write a proposal for a working group report for requirements for schema evolution following closure of LC124 ? 2005-01-05: Glen to write an outline for a test service and send it to the list. ? 2006-02-02: Bijan to run the partitioning analysis on ontology DONE [.1] 2006-02-27: Glen to open an issue around WSDL binding component issue. ? 2006-02-27: Tony to respond to Mark's comment (issue CR011). DONE [.2] 2006-02-27: Hugo to write up text that captures the above points by tomorrow. DONE [.3] 2006-02-28: Jacek to enumerate all URIs where we should provide RDF representations. DONE 2006-02-28: All editors to prepare drafts to consider for republication. Due 03/14. Current Editorial Action Items DONE 2006-01-26: Asir to fix CR008 - SOAP 1.1 Binding: example. [.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Feb/0059.html [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Mar/0022.html [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Mar/0023.html
Glen still working on test service
Implementor's call went well, made progress, going over to minuted calls from next week
Discuss next telcon at end of meeting
Hugo: Part 2 ready
Jacek: RDF ready
Arthur: Part 1 ready (some edits went in)
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to check with Asir and Kevin that they are ready [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
Jonathan: any objections to republishing at the team/editors convenience?
Omnes: (sound of cicadas) no objections
Hugo: we did modify the IRI style
- does that mean we want to change the IRI identifying the IRI
... But the new style is a strict superset, so no one should be detrimentally affected
Jacek: does this apply to all the namespace URIs?
Jonathan: does Arthur feel the same?
Arthur: it's not a big change, but it's fine to leave them the same.
Hugo: we didn't spell out a policy for change. It makes sense not to change them, because there's no substantive change. Well, except for the HTTP binding
Jonathan: no evidence that the
change to HTTP binding will adversely affect implementors
... so let's leave it.
There will be pressure not to change the namespace after CR - would break every implementation
Hugo: for this refresh, let's not change the namespace URIs
Jonathan: any objections to republishing with existing namespace URIs?
Jonathan: do we have to have documents at each of the URIs for RDF?
Jacek: we have real URIs, and using fragment identifiers, so we are OK
Jonathan: should we have RDDL documents at the URIs? Should we use content negotiation?
Jacek: don't need to solve this for this publication - can resolve later
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to turn Jacek's action into an issue so we can track the placement of RDDL documents at namespace URIs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
RESOLUTION: ready to republish all the documents
Jonathan: has Hugo taken this into account?
Hugo: is this the only place where we use the term "fatal error"?
Arthur: tried to remove this from everywhere in the spec - maybe it's creeping back in
<scribe> ACTION: Hugo to check Part 2 for instances of the terminology "fatal error" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Amy: there are 54 instances of the term "error" (20 in part 1; not all problematic) in the documents
Arthur: presume we can treat these as editorial? No need for CR issues?
Jonathan: not going to track CR013 anymore
Roberto: schema using
substitution groups, submitter would like this to be acceptable
... would like to use an element in the substitution group in place of the element
... recommendation is to close without doing anything.
... don't see this as generally useful
... don't know of any programming language that can do this - more suited to a message-oriented view
Jonathan: any objections to closing CR016 with no action?
RESOLUTION: close CR016 with no action
Do we want to make IRI or multipart style consistent with RPC style in having attribute extensions?
Jacek: I think there's a
... when constructing the signature we need simple types in IRI style (cannot permit attributes), unlike RPC style
Jonathan: so Umit's postulation that the attributes are not significant in RPC style is inaccurate?
Jacek: yes, they are significant
<Roberto> bullet #8
Jacek: guess this would apply to
IRI style too. Not familiar with multipart style
... don't expect digital signature in IRI style, because we pull it apart
Roberto: so there's nowhere to serialise the data
Jonathan: so we shouldn't change
anything - because the extension attributes won't appear in the
message for IRI or multipart styles
... any objection to closing CR017 with no action?
RESOLUTION: close CR017 with no action
Arthur: any place that you refer to a WSDL document it may not be the root element - it could be a fragment
Jonathan: thought that the WSDL document could be the document element, or embedded in another element.
Arthur: language is not clear -
"WSDL 2.0 document" sounds like "document element", leading to
... should clarify where the term appears
Jonathan: sounds editorial. Any objections to having Arthur clarify this where appropriate?
RESOLUTION: Arthur to clarify the term "WSDL document" where appropriate
<Jonathan> Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Mar/0019.html
Arthur: we had the rule that one
need not import schema types
... but what if we want to refer to an element, such as "schema"?
Jacek: let's do what XML Schema does
Jonathan: wanted to have all the XML Schema simple types "built-in" to WSDL
Arthur: yes, wanted all the
Schema types built-in, such as "QName"
... but had this odd case of the element
Tony: I thought Schema didn't have any elements?
<Jonathan> Proposal 2: Make XML Schema a well-known namespace (no import required)
Amy: you have to give it a namespace prefix, but don't need to import it
Arthur: yes, that's the intent
Roberto: I disagree. Sent an
e-mail in response saying that this was not our intent
... we only intended types to be imported
<Roberto> section 3.14.7
Roberto: this is a change from
what we intended, and think it's a bad idea
... if you want to refer to xs:schema you will find it isn't grandfathered in
Arthur: are you saying we'd have to import Schema to use xs:schema? Perhaps we can try this as an experiment using existing implementations?
Amy: this is a bootstrap problem - no way to import without xs:import
Jacek: Amy's analysis isn't completely correct. can't define a service that exchanges schema documents without importing schema namespace
Roberto: cannot identify language and meta-language
<JacekK> JacekK: also talking about WSDL namespace - can't define a service that exchanges wsdl documents without importing wsdl namespace
Roberto: xs:import as a QName is not the same as xs:import as a component
Amy: can we take this to the XS
... let's run this past the experts to see their opinions
Arthur: running the experiment now - looks like we DO have to import schema
<Jonathan> <wsdl:input element="xsd:schema" />
Jonathan: does it look like we're leaning toward requiring the import?
Amy: want to take this to the experts - let's delay a decision until we have their input
Arthur: can we at least decide if we want all or nothing? Do we want to require the import for the types, too?
Jonathan: well, the only place we
will need the elements would be on wsdl:input / wsdl:output,
etc. Whereas the simple types are required many other
... let's take this to the list, discuss the choices: treat simple types specially; always require import; never require import
Arthur: have seen web services which do return a schema as output
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to report on Xerces' behaviour with the schema import issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/16-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
Jonathan: I can take this to the Coord WG if required - will wait to see
Arthur: think Jacek is right - types and elements are in different spaces - should perhaps change the MUST NOT to a note, because this will be reported differently
Jonathan: are we agreed to accept Jacek's point?
Arthur: prefer to make this a NOTE THAT
Amy: yes, worth making the point that this is a potential mistake
RESOLUTION: Arthur to take editorial action on CR020
Jonathan: suggest we make the next call two weeks from now - March 30th
Arthur: when is the repub
... not for a few days? I will get these changes in before the repub
Jonathan: aiming for next week for repub