See also: IRC log
<plh> here is an example of the transformation
<plh> <echoStringResponse xmlns="http://www.wso2.com/schemas/2006/interop/EchoService">
<plh> Echo me</echoStringResponse>
it would be nice to have a schema for the log file, using lax for the message content
<Marsh> ACTION: Philippe to look at generating XPath assertions from the component model [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/19-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
<plh> ACTION: Arthur to generate the component models for the messages [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/19-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> scribe: Arthur
<scribe> Meeting: WSD WG Weekly Telecon
[Interop] ? 2006-07-06: [interop] Jonathan - create validation-report stylesheet. ? 2006-07-20: [interop] Jonathan to add timestamps to result stylesheet. DONE [.5] 2006-09-21: [interop] Philippe to transform HTTP headers in the logs to XML format. DONE [.6] 2006-10-12: [interop] Arthur to document how to add test cases, and how to run the scripts for the test cases. ? 2006-10-12: [interop] ALL to ponder how to run the tests. WG ? 2006-07-06: Glen to contribute some extension test cases. ? 2006-09-21: Jonathan to check periodically that SPARQL has added schemaLocation. ? 2006-09-28: Marsh to suggest some generic conformance text DONE [.3] 2006-09-28: Jacek to follow up with Karl Dubost to get info about RDF issue 297. ? 2006-10-12: pdowney to review the Schema WG note on versioning in 1.1. DONE [.4] 2006-10-12: Jonathan to conduct a review of the SAWSDL Last Call WD. Current Editorial Action Items ? 2006-09-28: Jean-Jacques to factor the "extra" MEPS out of the specification (Part 2) and make a new NOTE (Amy to refine) 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/0037.html [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Oct/0040.html [.5] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/messages/good/InOut-1G/axis-inout-selftest.descmsg?rev=1.1&content-type=text/xml [.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Oct/0041.html
no new status on actions
There are 7 people registered for the interop event.
Jonathan sent comments. Any comments?
Jonathan to summarize comments.
Jonathan: the draft lacks
precision in use of WSDL 2.0 terminology
... suggests they use the names of the WSDL 2.0 components
... they need to be clearer about when properties appear, e.g. in the mapping from XML to component model
... the lack of precision would hamper interop, I suggested cleared text
Arthur: is the value space of the property defined clearly?
Jonathan: yes they are described
as a set of uris
... this is like style uris
... they also have a usage guide but it has a lot of discussion of ontologies and not WSDL content
... I did notice an error in a schema namespace
... I'll invite them to contribute their example WSDL as a test case
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan will send comments, correct schema error, and invite them to contribute the test case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/19-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Jonathan: Youenn is going to be late but he sent a proposal on MTOM
Jonathan: Arthur proposed using content negotiation
Arthur: why can't the client using the MTOM mime type
Tom: not convinvce HTTP content negotiation is a good way to workaround the description, the WSDL should describe it
Philippe: agree with Tom, we have not relied on content negotiation
Asir: I understand this is just a temporary measure until policy assertion is defined
Jonathan: policy will become the preferred way to advertise extensions
Asir: +1 to Jonathan
Jonathan: there are already policy assertion in use for WSDL 1.1 so this is a clean migration path to WSDL 2.0
Philippe: this will not satisfy the Canon requirement
Jonathan: Youenn's proposal does use content negotiation in the case where MTOM is optional
<Marsh> Arthur: Like to revisit the assumption of tying f&p removal with this extension.
<Marsh> Arthur: Canon wanted to use f&p to describe MTOM. But now they're using WSDL extensions.
<Marsh> ... They could have used extensions initially.
<Marsh> ... We have replaced one extensibility mechanism with another, not functionality.
<Marsh> ... Other group should take this up
<Marsh> Philippe: They had a standard mechanism before, now they've lost it.
<Marsh> Asir: XMLP WG is interested in this, +1 to Arthur's statement about domain experts.
<Marsh> Arthur: Canon's use of MTOM feature was not well-defined, it relied on private stuff.
<Marsh> ... No prior submission from Canon to define a standard MTOM f&p behavior.
<Marsh> Philippe: Trying to represent Canon's position.
<Marsh> ... thought using the feature URI was sufficient, maybe that wasn't the case...
<Marsh> Asir: Disagree's with Philippe. Section 2.1 of Canon's proposal has a lot of stuff that would have to be spelled out in F&P.
<JacekK> zaim, aaaa is me
<Marsh> Arthur: If they wanted to use this feature as an interoperable mechanism, they need to have a spec.
<TomJ> The spec they had was WSDL, now they are specifying it fully
<Marsh> Charlton: Agree with Arthur, would need a spec.
<asir> XMLP minutes are at http://www.w3.org/2006/10/18-xmlprotocol-minutes.html
Philippe: Agree that the MTOM
spec was not sufficient and they would need to specify the
... XMLP is considering defining an MTOM policy assertion
Tom: If XMPL is defining a spec will they answer the questions we raised?
Asir: See the link I pasted. I expect the semantics to be specified.
Jonathan: need to coordinate
XMLP, Policy, and us
... there is a clear need for one or more description mechanisms for MTOM, we need to decide who defines
Asir: there is an existing MTOM policy assertion and this will be a good starting point
Philippe: no spec for it
Asir: MSFT is planning to publish it
<Roberto> it will all happen "one day"
Jonathan: it is in the test suite
Philippe: is it published somewhere
Asir: on the Web, google it
<plh> I don't find the test suite using google. do you have a pointer Asir?
Tom: so the feeling is you don't want it described here since it will interfere with planned work on a policy assertion
Jonathan: this group alone will not be able to close the issue since other groups are involved
<TomJ> I am just not convinced that WSDL 2.0 readers/users will be happy that we just walk away from specifying how the MTOM is engaged in WSDL
Jonathan: we could adopt the
proposal as a working draft because its in our scope, but then
we'd have to manage all the comments and prove there are
... what can we do to move forward now? there was a call to resolve the F&P issue
... can be adopt Youenn's proposal as a draft?
Asir: we can send Youenn's proposal to XMLP
Jonathan: would we request a way to describe MTOM or specifically a WSDL extension?
Asir: should let them decide
Charlton: we could give them a list of requirements
Jonathan: perhaps Canon should transfer the requirements to XMLP since they are a member of that
<Roberto> our charter talks about MTOM: "support for this mechanism will be provided"
Philippe: do we have to wait for the policy assertion?
<plh> Philippe: looks like XMLP will do the policy assertion. Do we have to wait for them to know if they are going to do a WSDL extension?
Jonathan: there are potentially 3 ways for MTOM 1) youenn's extension, 2) the XMLP assertion, 3) the MSFT assertion - these could all be different
Arthur: it would be desirable to have one semantics that could be used in policy and elsewhere, e.g. an extension
Philippe: we need to understand what XMLP will do
Jonathan: what can we to make progress
Tony: drop F&P
Jonathan: we could also adopt some requirements, e.g. to have a way to describe MTOM
Asir: we could continue to consider the Canon proposal and drop F&P
Tom: I feel this group should
... wasn't MTOM a normative part of the spec?
Arthur: no, just a primer example
Philippe: XMLP is the right place to define MTOM
<asir> +1 to Philippe
Philippe: Canon is a member of F&P
Jonathan: the reason we have a separate document for MTOM is that is was not a part of the Adjuncts
Tom: I assumed we had spec'ed a uri for MTOM
Jonathan: the MTOM spec defines a feature URI, but it is insufficient for defining the behavior
Tom: I am concerned that we are losing a capability, e.g. the ability to use a SOAP feature in WSDL 2.0
Jonathan: I believe WSO2 supports WS-Policy so it interops with MSFT
Charlton: is WS-Policy in Axis2
Tom: not is Axis2 but is at Apache
<asir> Apache Neethi
Tom: I propose we drop F&P and move MTOM to XMLP
Philippe: last week I doubted XMLP would take on this MTOM work, but now they have indicated they want to
Roberto: I agree that MTOM should be handled by XMLP
Arthur: IBM is interested in discussing MTOM in XMLP
Jonathan: how do we transition
Youenn's spec - Coordination?
... the proposal is to drop F&P and move MTOM to XMLP
Philippe: should we discuss policy versus extension?
Asir: let them review the spec with us
Jonathan: it's already in the
... Is there any objection to remove F&P and move MTOM to XMLP?
... no objections raised, so this is RESOLVED.
<scribe> ACTION: Remove F&P - editors for each Part should make necessary edits [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/19-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: contact Coordination Group and move Youenn's proposal to XMLP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/19-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
Jonathan: Propose to close as
... Any objections?
RESOLUTION: CR062 closed by editor actions to remove F&P
Jonathan: Any comments on my
... I feel there may be other solutions but I couldn't think of any.
<Marsh> 5) Suggest a SAWSDL annotation to indicate the semantics.
Jonathan: will send response
Jacek: rpc style is an interface style, soap headers are a binding component
<Marsh> Proposed resolution: Close CR082 with no action, reasons: rpc:sig is an interface construct, headers are a binding construct, and it's too late in the process anyway.
<scribe> ACTION: Jacek will expand the response for CR082 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/19-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06]
Jonathan: Any objections or do we want to review?
RESOLUTION: Close CR083 with this response.
Jonathan: Leave this as editorial?
RESOLUTION: Close CR083 as editorial and accept suggestion.
Jonathan: Let's hold a telecon next week to clean up resolutions and discuss publication schedule.
<TomJ> regrets for next week from me
Arthur: regrets for me for next week
<Marsh> Philippe, RRSAgent seems to be ignoring me. Can't get acess to either the irc log or the minutes.