See also: IRC log (partial)
<scribe>: JacekK
RESOLVED: minutes of last week approved
Review of Action items [.1].
? 2006-09-21: Jonathan to check periodically that SPARQL has
added schemaLocation.
? 2007-01-04: Paul to report back on which test cases in the
WSDL test suite fail the basic patterns, with
suggestions on how to address the issues.
? 2007-01-11: Jean-Jacques to provide more analysis on how
difficult it would be deal with a Policy that
only contains an MTOM policy assertion
DONE [.3] 2007-02-15: Jonathan to forward his WSDL1.1 identifiers
Comments
DONE 2007-02-15: Jonathan to drum up a WS-A reviewer off-list
DONE [.4] 2007-02-15: Jonathan to check whether the test suite needs
to be fixed with regards to SOAP Response and
action
Current Editorial Action Items
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/2007Feb/0118.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0158.html
Jonathan: we may not need to review the WS-A spec formally in this WG, due to the overlap with WS-A
... I fixed the test suite wrt: soap action on GET
youenn: you broke put and didn't fix delete
jjm: XMLP asked us to review the one-way MEP...
Jonathan: I believe we did that
... Jonathan: I may want to check the delivery of one-way MEP comments to XMLP
<Jonathan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2007Feb/0000.html
Jonathan: done
... will fix the PUT and DELETE
Jonathan: Jonathan: still waiting for the TAG to reply to our question
Jacek: they will discuss it on Monday, probably
Jonathan: Jonathan: we'll revisit it next week, then
Jonathan: Jonathan: anybody against changing to http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl or wsdl2?
Jacek: I like wsdl2
jjm: I like the change
Jacek: would we also change the documents to version 2, not 2.0?
Jonathan: why?
Roberto: why even 2?
gpilz: the 2 helps people distinguish from wsdl1.1
Jonathan: without '2', we make a political statement that WSDL 2.0 is the one true version
Jacek: if we adopt /wsdl and there's wsdl3, would we have /wsdl and then /wsdl3?
Jonathan: that's a very unlikely scenario
...most new things can be extensions
Roberto: policy has /ns/policy with no version
monica: we could ask the W3C about how they plan to handle future versions
Jonathan: some namespaces have RDDL sets of links
... Jonathan: next version would give us the question again, there's a central authority on this /ns/
chad, question: namespace
... option 0: /2006/01/wsdl
... option 1: /ns/wsdl
... option 2: /ns/wsdl2
... option 3: /ns/wsdl20
... option 4: /ns/wsdl2.0
<Roberto> are there precedents for /ns/wsdl2.0 ?
TonyR: wsdl20 is like the number twenty
Jonathan: but it's similar to the shortname in /TR/
<jjm> vote: 1
<JacekK> vote: 2, 3, 0
<TonyR> vote: 2,1,0,4,3
<plh> vote: 2, 1, 3
<gpilz> vote: 2, 3, 4, 1, 0
<Roberto> vote: 1, 4, 0, 3
<youenn> vote: 1,2
<Jonathan> vote: 1, 2
<jkaputin> vote: 1, 2, 3
chad, count
<chad:> Question: namespace
... Option 0: /2006/01/wsdl (0)
... Option 1: /ns/wsdl (5)
... Option 2: /ns/wsdl2 (4)
... Option 3: /ns/wsdl20 (0)
... Option 4: /ns/wsdl2.0 (0)
... 10 voters: alewis abstained,gpilz (2,3,4,1,0),JacekK (2,3,0),jjm (1),jkaputin (1,2,3),Jonathan (1,2),plh (2,1,3),Roberto (1,4,0,3),TonyR (2,1,0,4,3),youenn (1,2)
... Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
... Candidate 1 is elected.
... Winner is option 1 - /ns/wsdl
<monica> vote: 1, 4, 0, 3
a straw-poll indicates that /ns/wsdl is preferred by the WG
<pauld> chad, option 5: /2007/01/wsdl
<pauld> thinks /ns/* sucks
<Jonathan> chad, options
<chad> Question: namespace
... Option 0: /2006/01/wsdl (0)
... Option 1: /ns/wsdl (6)
... Option 2: /ns/wsdl2 (4)
... Option 3: /ns/wsdl20 (0)
... Option 4: /ns/wsdl2.0 (0)
... Option 5: /2007/01/wsdl (0)
Jonathan: it seems people are interested in moving away from dated form
TonyR: a bit of history is good for you
plh: the tools will remember the dates easily
pauld: I like the dated thing in face of multiple versions
... typing it, I'm happy to use the date
Jonathan: I prefer without date because it's not just a namespace, but other identifiers are based on it and I tend to type those so it's easier
gpilz: those URIs might not even change between versions
<pauld> it's "what colour are the bicycle sheds"
<JacekK> vote: 0, 3, 2
<asir> vote: 1, 2
<asir> chad, options
<chad> Question: namespace
... Option 0: /2006/01/wsdl (1)
... Option 1: /ns/wsdl (7)
... Option 2: /ns/wsdl2 (3)
... Option 3: /ns/wsdl20 (0)
... Option 4: /ns/wsdl2.0 (0)
... Option 5: /2007/01/wsdl (0)
<pauld> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_Parkinson's_Bicycle_Shed_Effect
pauld: without versioning, we just pick, but expecting more versions, we might have a hard time with /ns/wsdl
<JacekK> vote: 2, 3, 0
<jjm> vote: 1
<jjm> votes: 1
<asir> vote: 1
<asir> chad, options
<chad> Question: namespace
... Option 0: /2006/01/wsdl (0)
... Option 1: /ns/wsdl (7)
... Option 2: /ns/wsdl2 (4)
... Option 3: /ns/wsdl20 (0)
... Option 4: /ns/wsdl2.0 (0)
... Option 5: /2007/01/wsdl (0)
<pauld> vote: 5
<plh> vote: 1
<pauld> vote: 5, 0
Jonathan: any objections to changing our namespace(s) to http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl
<gpilz> vote: 5
<asir> chad, options
<chad> Question: namespace
... Option 0: /2006/01/wsdl (0)
... Option 1: /ns/wsdl (8)
... Option 2: /ns/wsdl2 (2)
... Option 3: /ns/wsdl20 (0)
... Option 4: /ns/wsdl2.0 (0)
... Option 5: /2007/01/wsdl (2)
RESOLVED: namespace changed to http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl
Jonathan: issue CR153 closed
Jonathan: this will be bundled with 147
<pauld> it's a configuration over convention
Jonathan: seems that the assertion can be coded in the schema
pauld: but this duplication is harmless
Jonathan: this assertion would not surface from the validator because schema validation would reject it earlier
Jonathan: and it'd be an easy fix
Roberto: +1
jkaputin: +1
RESOLUTION: assertion markup around this assertion to be removed, and similarly the new corresponding assertion around interface faults, just added
Jonathan: should offensive characters in the template get encoded together with the filled-in values?
... Jonathan: some more confusion in the text found (double negatives)
... Jonathan: first part of the fix - move the bullets with assertions in 6.8.1.1 up front
... Jonathan: and removing NOT from second bullet of current second bullet
Jacek: NOT is not a RFC2119 keyword, right?
Jonathan: and then the IRI is transcoded into URI
... the RFC says that some characters SHOULD be encoded - this impacts us
... Jonathan: canon and wso2 are planning to honor that SHOULD
youenn: RFC2396, sec 3.3 says & is allowed in path
... ... and ; = ? / are reserved
Jonathan: maybe we should move this to email, we need a number of double-checks
... about semicolon, equals, ampersand...
... Jonathan: and {query parameter separator}
Jacek: the query parameter separator is harmful in query
Jonathan: I feel we just need to drop the first subbulet of the second bullet
Jonathan: recapitulation:
... move the 4th and 5th bullets up, remove the NOT from the second subbulet of second bullet
... Jonathan: remove first subbulet of second bullet
... Jonathan: remove ; and = from the remaining subbullet
... add & there
ACTION: Jonathan to put the proposal on the list for us to double-check.
Jonathan: we'll take this to the list
... other issues? Youenn may have had one
youenn: it's about the query parameter separator value, which may be anything
Jonathan: yes, but what if it's
something that interacts with the encoding algorithm?
... so should we restrict the values to something more
manageable, like {';', '&'}
youenn: maybe a SHOULD restriction to the two could be sufficient
Jonathan: e.g. # would not be a
good query param separator
... how much do we want to keep people from hanging
themselves?
... we can come up with a list of harmless characters, and even
put it in schema
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to figure out what characters can be used as query separators without causing harm [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
people happy with the direction
Jonathan: any other issues?
jkaputin: I had one
... on the schema, about #any, #other, and it still has
features and properties?
<monica> there is an issue
<Jonathan> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.xsd
Jonathan: the editor's copy doesn't have f&p
<youenn> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2007Feb/0006.html
youenn: still on the URI encoding, people are talking about it in the W3C URI list
Jonathan: do you think they say something that we could use?
youenn: it'd be good to have consensus with them
Jonathan: we can send a summary of our proposal to them
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to send a summary of our URI templating text to the URI list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
Jonathan: we're getting closer to
completion
... all green on interchange results
... no results for LocationTemplate-2G
youenn: working on that
Jonathan: ... few reds expected
to remain
... all-green would assure us that no new issues should be
coming
... results for validation should probably be refreshed before
director's call
youenn: some of the results may stay red in PR
Jonathan: director's call should come within 10 days after our vote to move to PR
jkaputin: we may have better results
Jonathan: msg-level tests are the main thing to focus on now
jjm: editorial items implemented
Roberto: have problems with CVS
Jonathan: we should have
everything done before we vote for PR next week
... renumbering assertions?
JacekK: where do the assertion IDs show up?
Jonathan: in the summary,
fragment-id's, and test suite in validation
... two numbering schemes - token, then number or a coded
number
gpilz: do we have a proposal for renumbering?
Jonathan: arthur came up with a new system
jkaputin: consistency would be good
Jonathan: the question is about who does it
JacekK: don't think they're prominent enough that they need to be changed
Jonathan: the question is whether
we have somebody to do it
... if we don't care, let's drop this
jkaputin: it'd be good to have the IDs identify a section in the spec
Jonathan: the assertion ID is a
fragment ID, direct link
... I'll send a mail to Arthur that we don't really care about
the renumbering
jkaputin: if I send you a patch, would it be considered?
Jonathan: it would be
accepted
... let's talk with Arthur
<Jonathan> ACTION: Jonathan to start renumbering discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Jonathan: any necessary changes
to the SOAP 1.1 binding?
... RDF mapping?
JacekK: it will be updated for the PR publication round
Jonathan: next week we'll ask about new WDs of SOAP 1.1 binding, additional MEPs, and RDF mapping
<alewis> noted, jonathan.
Jonathan: the additional MEPs
title should look more official
... similar to the specs
jjm: CR136 implementing needs the regeneration of the component table
plh: I can do it
Jonathan: there's a - component
which is weird
... see you next week
asir: not aware of any changes for SOAP 1.1 binding doc