See also: IRC log
<TonyR> SCRIBE: TonyR
<Jonathan> Arthur: Completed interchange schemas for extensions, with different namespaces.
<Jonathan> ...Moved name into a base namespace
arthur: used an extra namespace to permit reuse
jonathan: find it not aesthetic, but understand the need
arthur: avoiding circular dependency
jonathan: hard drive failure lost previous "implementation"
jonathan: producing a different version with improved design
arthur: ran new version with the new extensions: safe and signature
jonathan: roll-up report generated from test suite metadata - noted that it doesn't include Sparql, for example
john: wrote some new test cases,
not had time to check them in yet.
... including nested imports
jonathan: my XSLT will fail those
arthur: xerces won't handle fragment ids correctly
lawrence: have to handle that with custom code
arthur: have a solution strategy
... have to use a "magic" API to handle it
... documentation for this can be found in a xerces JIRA submitted by me
... can avoid the need: anything that can be put in an in-line schema can be put in another resource
john: spec doesn't say that QNames in the extends attribute have to be unique
arthur: should be a validation error if a QName appears twice in this attribute
john: should raise this as on the list?
john: if I find any issues in Part 2 I'll raise them next call
lawrence: there is some traffic on the Woden list on some issues in implementing WSDL 2 in Axis
john: suggestion for how to
integrate Woden into Axis 2 by connecting the Woden object
model to their WOM
... suggestion made by Dims - may not be the most efficient, but pragmatic for the interop event
... have had a WSDL 1.1 -> WSDL 2 converter submitted to the Woden repository this week
arthur: but there are lots of
things in WSDL 1.1 that cannot be represented in WSDL 2.0, so
this is not a true representation of the WSDL 1.1
... we could define extensions to represent the missing parts of WSDL 1.1
john: add these to the spec?
arthur: no, not as part of the spec, per se, but as third party extensions to provide a migration path
jonathan: seems a bit surreal - we went to the trouble to remove all these things, and now we will add them back in!
arthur: it's for migration
purposes. We're not encouraging people to use them.
... not having those features could act as a barrier to conversion to WSDL 2.0
lawrence: if we provide all these features, why would they migrate?
arthur: if we do this, then Axis 2 can become widely deployed, and people will have the ability to use WSDL 2
john: well, it would give them an easier migration path
arthur: first step would be to
provide WSDL 1.1 to WSDL 2.0 conversion, as best we can. There
are problems in the service element - many things you could put
there that can't be represented
... you could put as many bindings as you wanted into one service element in WSDL 1.1, for example
john: the conversion tool addressed that by generating multiple services, one for each binding
arthur: may need a convention to capture where the multiple services came from
john: where would the document go?
arthur: would suggest that the document describing these extension/s be submitted as a Note
john: we can start with the work that Matt has done in this conversion tool
arthur: he wrote up some of the issues earlier
All done for this week
<Allen> SCRIBE: Allen
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 ? 2006-03-30: Marsh to make XSLT improvements for RDF publication. ? 2006-04-20: Glen to flesh out a model for runtime test scenarios. DONE [.3] 2006-04-27: [interop] Arthur to add extensions to the CM interchange format. ? 2006-04-27: [interop] Arthur to add the expected assertion violated by each "bad" test case. ? 2006-05-11: [interop] Chairs to invite XFire to join this call per Tom Jordahl's suggestion ? 2006-05-11: [interop] Jonathan to look into how to create SOAP 1.2 services with .NET. ? 2006-05-11: Arthur to prepare logistics page for interop event asap 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://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/interchange/
Next telcon, next week
JM: Arthur refactored all the schemas
Philippe: RDF now published
JM: RDF now in last call
JM: in a holding pattern, waiting for input
Roberto: No retionale for having
an extension modify components of imported documents
... no objection to proposal
JM: How bad are the effects of
the status quo?
... Is n**2 validation time really that bad?
Arthur: Yes, seeing bad
performance because documents can't be cached. With restriction
documents would only need to be read once.
... We are seeing workspaces with hundreds of documents
JM: Can we leave this open for one more week? Asir had some questions.
Arthur: In SOAP binding, is there any constraint between interface MEP and SOAP MEP?
Amy: SOAP 1.2 binding says that SOAP MEP uses particular WSDL MEP. Right?
Roberto: maybe it is done indirectly. SOAP spec requires certain messages which correspond to WSDL MEP requirements.
Amy: SOAP 1.2 doesn't depend on WSDL. WSDL SOAP extension does depend on SOAP so that is where the restriction should go.
JM: Does the restriction exist somewhere? If so, we can fix this with a link.
Arthur: 5.10.4 binds SOAP 1.2 MEPs to WSDL MEPs.
JM: Is this complete?
... Just talks about WSDL in/out MEP
... We need someone to make a proposal to add this information
<scribe> ACTION: Amy will write a proposal for CR029 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/18-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
Arthur: Do you require a default
value for SOAP MEP
... Add some rule for computing SOAP MEP default so it is not really optional
Arthur: Is it required that there be a SOAP MEP assigned to every operation in a binding?
JM: 5.10.3, second bullet defines this - defaults to request/response
Amy: When oneway MEP is introduced this will break
JM: It will make the attribute required to handle this case
Arthur: can add a link to this section as an editorial item
Amy: move that SOAP MEP default or SOAP MEP must appear
Arthur: wants the link in any case
JM: amend Amy's proposal to
include the link
... Any objections to adding the link in any case?
Resolved: add a link to 5.10.3
Amy: change from having default of WSDL in/out to being an error if you don't specify SOAP MEP default or SOAP MEP
Resolved: CR030 closed with addition of forward reference
Arthur: no two components can have the same ref property
JM: only way to get this is to have more than one sibling soap modules that have different required values
Arthur: or to have multiple
instances of the same module
... should just be an error
... validator should say it is wrong. Processor can do whatever it wants.
Roberto: not convinced by this because of extensibility. Someone chould add parameters to module with extensions. May require them to write more than one soap module.
Amy: only one scope for soap modules so you can only have one.
Robero: so it is easier to understand that there is a single soap module with multiple parameters stored underneath.
Arthur: soap module is an element so there is room to put whatever you want underneath.
Roberto: withdraws objection to proposal.
Resolved: add constraint to 5.8.2 that a soap module component on a given binding, ref will be constrained to be unique.
JM: should be a constraint on soap headers that each soap header should be uniquely identified
Arthur: is there a one to one
correspondence between a header block and a header on the
... do child elements of a header all have unique element names?
Arthur: when you put in multiple header blocks, can some have mustunderstand and others not?
JM: yes but it won't change
... don't see a compelling reason to change this
Roberto: it would be more understandable if we allow only one soap header for a given element name. If we want to have multiple headers add an attribute like repeatable.
JM: currently we can specify an exact number, not just many
Arthur: we can now say something like have between 3 and 5 headers with minoccurs and maxoccurs.
JM: proposal - change 0 or 1 to 0 or more and require each header block to have a unique declaration.
Roberto: status quo doesn't allow any number of headers of the same type.
Arthur: proposal - require header element declaration to be unique. If you want to put in more than one header define a complex type.
JM: proposal - element declaration is unique but before we close, ping Glen and Dave O
<Jonathan> ACTION: Marsh to ping DaveO and Glen about the proposed resolution to CR032. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/18-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
<Jonathan> "namespace#name" -> "qname"
Resolution: change component identifier from namespace #name to QName
JM: editorial - remove MUST NOT
Resolved: CR034 closed
Arthur: no default http method. Suggest POST.
JM: if we add safety then if tagged as safe you get GET otherwise POST.
Resolved: close CR035 by adding "otherwise the value POST" as last bullet.
<Jonathan> Proposal: add a fourth bullet to 6.3.1; "Otherwise, the value 'POST'".