W3C

WS Description WG telcon

12 Oct 2006

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Charlton Baretto, Adobe Systems
Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet, Canon
Tom Jordahl, Adobe Systems
Jacek Kopecky, DERI Innsbruck at the Leopold-Franzens-Universit├Ąt Innsbruck, Austria
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
Philippe Le Hegaret, W3C
Jonathan Marsh, Co-chair
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
Vivek Pandey, Sun Microsystems
Gilbert Pilz, BEA Systems
Tony Rogers, Co-chair/Computer Associates
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Regrets
Chair
Jonathan
Scribe
tonyr, pauld

Contents


Implementer's call

<TonyR> scribe: tonyr

plh: wanting help with action item - cannot see HTTP headers in the logs

arthur: showing the location of the HTTP headers, concerning good messages
... we're using the WSI test tools
... we're not catching the messages as XML, because the message may not be XML, or it may be well-formed XML

plh: should steal the code from the Addressing test tools that transforms the WS-I format into more useful format
... should be relatively easy because we're only interested in relatively few headers

lengthy discussion of logging details - need to switch logging on and off to isolate each test case, and whether it would be simpler to split the log ourselves.

plh: have enough information to proceed now

jonathan: in addressing we crafted tests in the form of X-Paths, here we have complex X-Paths

plh: but in addressing we didn't have a description - here we do

arthur: we can use the Component Model Interchange format to provide the X-Paths

plh: aim is to have the tools ready by the time of the ftf - just have to write the tests

jonathan: there's a lot of work there: every test will require a custom X-Path

arthur: what about using schematron?
... we need a format for the log file - can probably base it on the addressing work

jonathan: need to tackle the question of running all the test cases into a single log file - much easier for testers, but harder to parse, because we need to be able separate the test cases
... need to ensure that the test case id is embedded in the message

arthur: we have the WSDL files for all of our tests - we can use them

jonathan: that's different from the addressing tests - only had one endpoint

arthur: we could play back a log file either as a client or as a server

jonathan: looking at an example - perhaps we can include some basic scripting for the tests in the WSDL file in some form other than comments

arthur: perhaps in the documentation, or in the test metadata?

jonathan: in the metadata would be good. Or perhaps we could simply say "run through the operations in the order in the WSDL file"?

arthur: volunteers to take on Jonathan's actions, allowing Jonathan to focus on how the ftf will run

plh: will get the log transformations done in 2 weeks

jonathan: does someone volunteer to write a change to the test metadata to incorporate scripting?

omnes: chirping crickets...

discussion of using the existing test metadata, particularly the "expected result" information

arthur: perhaps we can include assertions in the test metadata, perhaps even multiple assertions, to check the expected results

<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to document how to add test cases, and how to run the scripts for the test cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> ACTION: ALL to ponder how to run the tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]

<pauld> scribe: pauld

Action item review

Review of Action items [.1].

[Interop]
?         2006-07-06: [interop] Jonathan - create validation-report
                      stylesheet.
?         2006-07-20: [interop] Jonathan to add timestamps to result
                      stylesheet.
?         2006-09-21: [interop] Philippe to transform HTTP headers in
                      the logs to XML format.
WG
CLOSED    2005-07-21: Pauld to write a proposal for a working group
                      report for requirements for schema evolution
                      following closure of LC124
?         2006-07-06: Glen to contribute some extension test cases.
?         2006-09-21: Jonathan to check periodically that SPARQL has added
                      schemaLocation.
DONE [.3] 2006-09-28: Youenn to propose an alternative syntax for MTOM
                      if F&P is removed
?         2006-09-28: Marsh to suggest some generic conformance text
?         2006-09-28: Jacek to follow up with Karl Dubost to get info
                      about RDF issue 297.
DONE [.5] 2006-10-05: Jacek to send response email noting his concern. 
DONE [.4] 2006-10-05: Jonathan to add issue 81.

Current Editorial Action Items
?         2006-09-28: Editors to factor the "extra" MEPS out of the
                      specification (Part 2) and make a new NOTE
DONE      2006-10-05: Arthur to revise appendix to include this (CR80) 
                      text.

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/2006Oct/0011.html
[.4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR081
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Oct/0006

Administrivia

last week's minutes approved

discussion of the LC124 everlasting action

<JacekK> my second action fulfilled: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Oct/0006

<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to review the Schema WG note on versioning in 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]

Marsh: up and coming interop event logisitics and registration on our public page
... please note my Email address and affiliation has changed

http://www.w3.org/2006/10/interop2-logistic.html

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/wsdl_interop2/

plh: will update registration to canvas opinion for a social event

Possible New Addressing Related Issue

arthur: looks like one for the Addressing WG

gil: they already got it

Features and Properties At Risk

youenn: sent a proposal, took the existing F&P for engaging MTOM and repurposed them for XML extensibility
... reused the MTOM URI to namespace the extension element

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Oct/0011.html

Marsh: what does "optional" mean, didn't see an answer in the thread

youenn: a client may use HTTP headers such as content negotiation, server decides
... same semantics as with the existing features and properties

Marsh: any interaction between wsdl:required?

youenn: yes, wsdl:required gives the required property optional value

Marsh: a client can ignore it, send text/xml, but server may return XOP which I can't digest

youenn: content negotiation may allow a client to preclude returning XOP

Marsh: multi-part encoded envelopes?

youenn: with content-negotiation, you can specify XOP, XML, or Multi-part related

Marsh: and then some people may want SwA ..

ack, Arthur

arthur: should be a WSDL namespace, rather than the XMP one
... we're going to define a schema, we don't have the right to own that namespace

plh: we could ask permission
... send them mail

roberto: I'm perplexed by the optionality, even a client which doesn't know about the extension has to be aware of the negotiation. We're giving license to a server to suprise clients

Marsh: we need to add a statement to say, if you get text/xml then you have to explicity have marked XOP as an allowable returned media type

youenn: required MTOM is very useful for output message

plh: why are we talking about content negotiation here

youenn: content-negotiation only applies to the output message

plh: thought optional marker means it isn't *required*

roberto: not the semantics of wsdl:required we've been using

youenn: two things: whether the client can send MTOM, and if the client has a choice to send and receive MTOM (that is support and engage)
... we can make a refinement, need to think about it

Marsh: it's a tricky area, we may need a parameter rather than reusing wsdl:required
... we're discussing this under removing F&P, does this hold back our discussing removing F&P?
... not personally interested in adding this proposal, what are the implications of adding another element

jjm: it's not adding, but moving existing functionality

arthur: were the semantics with F&P clear of engaging MTOM, you'd still need another spec

youenn: that spec already exists

arthur: not for engaging in WSDL 2.0

discussion of existing F&P engagement and wsdl:required

arthur: don't overload wsdl:required, add another attribute

Marsh: existing F&P engagement was clear?

Tony: it's becoming clear it wasn't clear

plh: WS-Policy may want to review this assertion

arthur: what's wrong with Canon using WS-Policy

jjm: WS-Policy isn't here now

Marsh: they may beat us, yet :-(

arthur: it's an adjunct?

plh: that may make WS-Policy happier

jacek: part line might be to use WS-Policy in which case our defining an XML extension might not be welcomed by the Policy WG

plh: asked the Policy WG, and they said it's fine

Marsh: it's more of an implementation thing, Microsoft, for example, are more interested in supporting usingAddressing inside WS-Policy and not as a direct extensions
... separate spec because it needs more work, may attract WS-Policy flak?
... (as WSO2 rep) I don't see this as being interoperable
... natural place for engaging MTOM in WSDL would be XMLP (if they were active) possibly Policy

plh: Policy are only chartered to build a framework, XMLP are in maintainance mode

jjm: and they're not interested in description

jacek: is that the XMLP not interested, or people in the WG not interested?

plh: they're not chartered to do more work beyond the PER
... it's going to happen here or not at all

pauld: is there interest in having a Web Services Core WG to pick up this kind of work?

plh: such a WG would be more for maintainance and not new work

discussion of how specs may be passed from WG to WG

<Jonathan> chad: new poll

<chad> new poll

chad, option 0: close with no action

chad, option 1: remove F&P with no replacement for MTOM

chad, option 2: add Canon proposal as an adjunct

chad, option 3: add Canon proposal as a separate Last Call document

Marsh: the last call protects our main deliverable being stalled by comments from the WS-Policy WG

chad, option 4: define WS-Policy assertion

tom: opposed to being forced to support WS-Policy just to use MTOM

plh: this would be similar to usingAddressing, it can be used with policy

discussion clarifiing the options

Marsh: who decides if we have to go back to last call?

plh: the Director

tom: we had a clearly marked feature "At Risk"

plh: expect WS-Policy to want to review if we add an MTOM extension

<TonyR> chad, list options

jjm: there is precident with WS-Addressing, no?

plh: separate specification may be the easiest way

tom: makes a big difference, I might implement WSDL 2.0 and not be aware of the other specification

<JacekK> chad, option 4: add Canon proposal + define WS-Policy assertion in a separate LC document

chad, option4 define WS-Policy assertion in addition to Option 3

chad, option4: define WS-Policy assertion in addition to Option 3

<TomJ> vote 2

vote: tomj: 2

<gpilz> vote: 2

<JacekK> vote: 4,3,1

<Allen> vote: 3, 2

<TonyR> vote: 4, 3, 1, 2, 0

<Jonathan> vote: 1, 4, 3

<alewis> vote: 3, 4, 2 0

<youenn> vote: 2,4

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

<TomJ> vote: 2,3,4

<Arthur> vote: 4, 3, 2, 1, 0

<plh> vote: 4,2,1

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

vote: 4, 1

<jjm> vote: 2, 4

<gpilz> vote: 2, 3, 4

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

chad, count

<chad> Question: unknown

<chad> Option 0: close with no action (0)

<chad> Option 1: remove F&P with no replacement for MTOM (1)

<chad> Option 2: add Canon proposal as an adjunct (4)

<chad> Option 3: add Canon proposal as a separate Last Call document (2)

<chad> Option 4: define WS-Policy assertion in addition to Option 3 (7)

<chad> 14 voters: alewis (3,4,2,0),Allen (3,2),Arthur (4,3,2,1,0),gpilz (2,3,4),JacekK (4,3,1,2),jjm (2,4),Jonathan (1,4,3),pauld (4,1),plh (4,2,1),Roberto (4,3,2,1),TomJ (2,3,4),TonyR (4,3,1,2,0),Vivek (4,3,2,1),youenn (2,4)

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

<chad> Round 2: First elimination round.

<chad> Eliminating candidadates without any votes.

<chad> Eliminating candidate 0.

<chad> Round 3: Eliminating candidate 1.

<chad> Candidate 4 is elected.

<chad> Winner is option 4 - define WS-Policy assertion in addition to Option 3

<jjm> (capturing my earlier comment:) for the record, my company wants WSDL soon, MTOM support and cannot rely on WS-Policy yet

<alewis> chad, detail?

chad, details?

chad, details

arthur: we can make an informative reference to WS-Policy

jjm: can we wait a week while we consider our position?

arthur: we're all agreed to remove F&P?

Marsh: we could remove F&P, if we have consensus to take option 2,3 or 4

jjm: let's do it next week

arthur: we decided to make a decision this week
... what's the fall out from removing it, don't we need to take action to inform people

Tony: we could ask the editors to remove F&P ahead of the decision

arthur: don't want to branch
... we're slipping week by week

jjm: it's a big decision and it takes time

arthur: how likely is it we are going to keep F&P?

Marsh: are there any objections to removing F&P this week on the understanding we'll use Youenn's proposal in some form

jjm: I'd object to making that decision today

arthur: I'm OK to wait ONE more week, but unhappy to delay any further than that

Marsh: we can formalize the process if we wait one more week

pauld: +1 to Arthur

<TomJ> I also support Arthur's desire to not put this off any longer

CR081

<JacekK> "A Binding component that defines bindings for an Interface component

<JacekK> MUST define binding for all the faults of that Interface component that

<JacekK> are referenced from any of the operations in that Interface component."

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR081

<TomJ> +1 to Jaceks text

Marsh: any objections to accepting Jacek's proposal?

RESOLUTION: close CR081 with Jacek's proposal

<gpilz> This resolution generates a new assertion, no?

Last Call of SAWSDL

jacek: we'd like the WG to review our Last Call specification for Semantic Annotations for WSDL

<JacekK> ack

<Zakim> JacekK, you wanted to add a short call for review for SAWSDL to the end of the agenda

http://www.w3.org/TR/sawsdl/

<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to conduct a review of the SAWSDL Last Call WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]

Marsh: expect to skip telcons as our issues list dries up

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: ALL to ponder how to run the tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Arthur to document how to add test cases, and how to run the scripts for the test cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Jonathan to conduct a review of the SAWSDL Last Call WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: pdowney to review the Schema WG note on versioning in 1.1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/12-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/10/12 16:28:42 $