See also: IRC log
<plh2> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Oct/att-0065/foo.html__charset_utf-8
<chinthaka> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/report/
<chinthaka> WS-A reports
<chinthaka> The test home : http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/Overview.html
<plh> SOAP request-response/
<plh> SOAP soap-response/
<Jonathan> ACTION: Jonathan to create set of wire level test WSDLs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/26-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> Scribe: Asir S Vedamuthu
<scribe> ScribeNick: asir
<scribe> Meeting: WSDL WG Conference Call
<scribe> Chair: Jonathan Marsh
Last week minutes are at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Oct/att-0050/20061019-ws-desc-minutes.html
Resolution: approved
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.
? 2006-10-12: [interop] ALL to ponder how to run the tests.
? 2006-10-19: [interop] Arthur to generate the component models
for the messages.
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
? 2006-10-12: pdowney to review the Schema WG note on versioning
in 1.1.
DONE [.3] 2006-10-19: Jonathan will send comments, correct schema error,
and invite them to contribute the test case.
DONE 2006-10-19: contact Coordination Group and move Youenn's proposal
to XMLP.
? 2006-10-19: Jacek will expand the response for CR082.
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)
? 2006-10-19: Remove F&P - editors for each Part should make
necessary edits.
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/public-ws-semann-comments/2006Oct/0000.html
Jonathan: XMLP is looking into the MTOM description mechanism
<scribe> DONE - contact Coordination Group and move Youenn's proposal to XMLP
Interop event - http://www.w3.org/2006/10/interop2-logistic.html
Jonathan: any questions
None
Jonathan: will determine the need for con call on a week 2 week basis
opic: MTOM Description
Philippe summarizes CG discussion on MTOM description
Jonathan: still an open question in the XMLP WG
Philippe: XMLP WG is looking into
a policy assertion for describing MTOM
... AXIS has a policy impl but Canon doesn't
Jonathan: synced up with Chris -
XMLP had a brief discussion - they are interested and finding
it useful - will take a couple of weeks for the XMLP WG
... assertion or extension or both is an open question
[Deferring this discussion until Canon\JJM arrives]
Link to CR011 is http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR011
this is from Mark Nottingham
Mark N didn't accept our resolution (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2006Mar/0019
Mark N is not satisfied with the resolution and would like to move this to the transistion request
Because the WG doesn't have impl proof on HTTP Binding
RESOLUTION: NO Change - park it in the unaccepted list
Link to CR061 is http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR061
Jeremy points out a remaining bit (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2006Oct/0030
Sounds editorial
But will be removed when we cize F and P
RESOLUTION: non-issue - cos the section will be removed
Link to CR067 is http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR067
Jonathan points out a remaining bit (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2006Oct/0018
Text is still ambiguous - not clear 'what can be used' means - make it clear as suggested in the above e-mail
Philippe - it is not clear where http cookies are allowed
Philippe takes an informal action to write it up
Jonthan's bit is editorial
Resolution: accept Jonathan's proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2006Oct/0018
Link to CR082 is http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR082
[relating back to Jacekk's earlier comments]
Jason's pushback is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2006Oct/0037l
Jacekk: describes a loss of
functionality from WSDL 11
... we discussed earlier and this is a piece of missing
functionality
Jonathan: one solution is to define header defined parameters for rpc sig
Jacekk: impls are free to do whatever they wish using rpc sig
Jonathan: should we consider this proposal?
Jacekk: doesn't believe that this is useful
Does the primer capture any migration related information?
Philippe: not in the primer
Jonthan: confirms
Jacekk: engage Jason and ask him
what he wants
... suggest splitting out rpc sig into a note
RESOLUTION: No
change - park it in the unaccepted list
... (Jacekk to) Engage Jason and ask him what he wants
[WG misses Arthur and JJM]
Need to remove F&P from the core, adjuncts and primer
Jonathan is editing the primer
Jacekk removed F&P from the RDF mapping
Jacekk: but RDF mapping is not
ready to go yet
... next transistion for the RDF mapping is a WD
[JJM Arrives]
Sliding back to MTOM description
Jonathan summarizes one more time
Canon: we need a WSDL
extension
... wants the WG to communicate Canon's position to CG
Asir: if Canon is the only
company that needs a WSDL extension what is Canon's plan for
interop
... or is this primarily for internal purposes (within
Canon)
JJM: for internal purpose only
Jonathan: canon is the only one
interested in mtom wsdl extension interop
... would Canon's interop needs will be served by a note rather
than a REC track doc
another possibility is to have an assertion and make it usable within WSDL 20
JJM: has merits and will consider it
Jonathan: concrete what should we suggest to the CG and XMLP
Philippe: if the XMLP WG doesn't work on a policy assertion, are you interested in developing one here
JJM: yes
Jonathan: would you be willing to work on a mtom description if the XMLP WG is not interested in it
s/a mtom description cap/
no decision yet
<Jonathan> Summary: No firm consensus yet on whether this WG would develop MTOM descriptive capabilities (policy assertion, extension, or both) if the XMLP WG declines to accept this topic.
<Jonathan> ... There is so far a majority willing to adopt this task, but not everyone has determined their position, or made their preferences known, yet.
<Jonathan> ... Canon requires a wsdl extension (policy too is acceptable), and in a timely manner.
[open question is - is this new work in relation to patent policy?]
[Back to Administrivia]
Jonathan: tending to not having a call next week
JJM: prefers not having a call next week
Philippe: some amount of work needs to be done in part 2
JJM: will have done all the outstanding work except one
Jonathan: next call will be two
weeks from now
... Jacekk will have RDF mapping ready
... Amy will have MEPs note ready
... SOAP 11 binding doc is ready to go
... Core and Adjuncts pending items will be done in 2 weeks
[Compound question on the floor]
Jonathan summarizes the list of surviving meps
Tony: do we need an implementers call
Jonathan: yes
Philippe: yes
JJM: Youenn and JJM cannot attend
Philippe: lets hold the call and make some progress
RESOLUTION: implementers will continue to meet on a weekly basis
Jonathan: there are 10
registrations for the interop f2f
... XFire folks may show up
... IBM attendees are John and Arthur