W3C

WS Description telcon
16 Mar 2006

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Charlton Baretto, Adobe Systems
Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
Youenn Fablet, Canon
Hugo Haas, W3C
Jacek Kopecky, DERI Innsbruck at the Leopold-Franzens-Universitšt Innsbruck, Austria
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
Jonathan Marsh, Co-chair/Microsoft
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
Tony Rogers, Co-chair/Computer Associates
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Regrets
Tom Jordahl, Macromedia
Vivek Pandey, Sun Microsystems
Chair
Marsh
Scribe
TonyR

Contents


<scribe> scribe: TonyR

approval of minutes

Minutes of FtF approved

Action Item review

?         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

<JacekK> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Mar/0023.html

Administrivia

Implementor's call went well, made progress, going over to minuted calls from next week

Discuss next telcon at end of meeting

Publication status

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 style?
... 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?

Omnes: [cicadas]

No objections

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?

<JacekK> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Mar/0023.html

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

Issue CR013

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

Issue CR016: wrpc:signature for RPC style

Roberto: schema using substitution groups, submitter would like this to be acceptable using wrpc:signature
... 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?

Omnes: [cicadas]

No objections

RESOLUTION: close CR016 with no action

New issues

CR017 - new issue

<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Feb/0066.html

Do we want to make IRI or multipart style consistent with RPC style in having attribute extensions?

Jacek: I think there's a reason
... 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> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#RPCStyle

<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?

Omnes: [cicadas]

RESOLUTION: close CR017 with no action

CR018 - new issue: referring to a description element

<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Mar/0009.html

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 possible confusion
... 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

CR019 - new issue: must XML schema elements be imported?

<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Mar/0014.html

<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> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Simple_Type_Definitions

<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 working group?
... 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 places
... 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

CR020 - new issue: bogus assertion in 3.1.3

<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Mar/0016.html

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

next call

Jonathan: suggest we make the next call two weeks from now - March 30th

Arthur: when is the repub happening?
... not for a few days? I will get these changes in before the repub

Jonathan: aiming for next week for repub

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] 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]
[NEW] 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]
[NEW] 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]
[NEW] 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]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/03/16 17:23:47 $