Re: [I18N-WSTF] Teleconference Notes...

Hi Mark,

There is a certain amount of elision in the notes, I'm afraid.

Basically, the discussion revolved around the problem of passing locales 
to a WS: when should the WS designer need to deal with it (by specifying 
the locale in the parameter list of the actual service or in the Message 
definition in the WSDL) and when not.

Passing a locale explicitly is, as you note, a good idea when the locale 
has a natural or reasonable place in the "service contract". But it is a 
poor choice when the service isn't necessarily locale affected ("add two 
integer values"). Many if not most services fall into this latter 
category, IMO.

That isn't to say that there are no cases for passing a locale.

If one does a careful job of designing the data structures and service 
contract, generally one does not want a locale. You may need explicit 
facets of a locale (a language for natural language processing, a 
currency, a country code, etc. etc.), but not that many data structures 
  need an explicit locale, even as an override value.

There are lots of counter examples.

So that note should say something more like:

If you are making a WS out of an existing method or function call, it 
shouldn't be necessary to pass said method a locale unless the design of 
the method (e.g. the parameter list) really calls for it.

A lot more discussion (much of it off list, alas) goes with that, all of 
which fell under the rubric of "agreed about the nature of passing etc..."

Sorry the notes make this difficult to follow.

Addison

Mark Davis wrote:
>>o General agreement: passing locale explicitly is a poor choice for
> 
> designing a WS. We agreed about the nature of passing locale and programming
> model.
> 
> I am a bit uneasy about this. There are times when it is ok to depend on a
> 'global' locale. But it is subject to many of the general problems of global
> variables. What we chose to do in Java was to have both a 'global' setting,
> and to be able to explicitly pass in locales wherever necessary. (The
> architecture predated thread-locale storage in Java, otherwise storing on a
> thread basis would have been better that global to the entire address space.
> But notice that having explicit locales available makes it possible for
> people to write cover methods that do use thread-locale storage.)
> 
> Mark
> ________
> mark.davis@jtcsv.com
> IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
> (408) 256-3148
> fax: (408) 256-0799
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>
> To: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <aphillips@webmethods.com>;
> <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 18:05
> Subject: RE: [I18N-WSTF] Teleconference Notes...
> 
> 
> 
>>Attending: Kentaroh, Deb, Martin, Tex, Addison [chair, scribe]
>>Regrets: Mike, Takao
>>
>>Actions:
>>
>> o Deb: to follow up with Noji following this call
>> o Martin, Addison: Find out who WS-Transactionality is. Possibly consider
> 
> liasion.
> 
>> o Addison: Explore charter modification with Richard
>> o Tex: create use case(s) for "must match requested locale"
>> o Addison: create requirements document skeleton from ULocale document.
>> o Deb/Addison: looking at new WS docs from other W3C WGs to ensure we're
> 
> not missing anything
> 
>>General discussion:
>>
>>Martin at WS meeting in Arizona. Any specific input would be helpful.
> 
> Martin has 30 minutes tomorrow in joint session.
> 
>>Martin: Appreciated Deb's note on "context" keyword. Discussion of context
> 
> mechanism for WSDL. Deb thinks this will be defined (competing  proposals
> exist). Exchange of contexts will be defined in WSDL and elsewhere. Need to
> fit our proposals into this mechanism as it matures.
> 
>>Note: WS-Choreography WG was started.
>>
>>--- no additional actions --- so we proceeded to discussion of
> 
> locale/language negotiation:
> 
>>o "context" definition across WS, not just for i18n.
>>o "what" instead of "how" should be the starting part. IOW> we should work
> 
> on "tags", not the exchange mechanism because we think that the "context"
> idea will be standardized elsewhere.
> 
>>o General agreement that locale should not be explicit most of the time.
>>o General agreement: passing locale explicitly is a poor choice for
> 
> designing a WS. We agreed about the nature of passing locale and programming
> model.
> 
>>o General agreement: locale interpretation is a problem due to disparate
> 
> implementations (see Kentaroh's list)
> 
>>    --how much alignment/precision is desirable?
>>    --"tags" might take several forms:
>>          i) tag
>>         ii) structure/data
>>        iii) urn (as a pointer to a) datafile
>>
>>
>>Discussed what forms a good usage scenario: collation is a good example..
> 
> business rules a good example.. SQL statements with implicit ordering also
> important. Example: "select all foo < ñ" (that's U+00F1, n-tilde)
> 
>>Discussed reasons why "charset" might be useful or not. General agreement
> 
> that we want to use Unicode everywhere and that charset is an XPG4 legacy
> value that might not have a place in WS locale negotiation.
> 
>>   counter examples: WS container invokes XPG4 program in new
> 
> thread-of-execution; JCA connection to XPG4 resource
> 
>>Tex: wants to eliminate ambiguity of existing locale system. Specifying a
> 
> locale and using fallbacks may be problematic in some circumstances. Need
> something like a "must match" with default of false. Tex to create use case
> for this.
> 
>>Discussed why fallbacks are prone to failure, some are "sometimes wrong",
> 
> and sometimes best practices can work.
> 
>>Deb: suppose that no one does anything. We should compare scenarios in
> 
> this area. Also: consider J2EE example of server-enforced locale.
> 
>>Ultimately, we agreed on a "Goldilock's approach":
>>   "As closely defined as we can make the locale tags, but as open as
> 
> possible."
> 
>>Agreed that our next steps are to find agreement on the requirements so
> 
> that we can pursue standardization of a tagging scheme.
> 
>>In particular we need to write requirements and *also* usage scenarios.
> 
> What is the general case? What is the usage case?
> 
>>Group: Considered if we should modify our charter now to allow us to
> 
> create this as a W3C Recommendation. Discussion ensued. Planned to create
> requirements in the next two weeks. We think that this document will give us
> enough guidance to decide whether to pursue a specific charter mod or
> whether to put this item to I18N-WG-Core or to WS-Arch.
> 
>>Discussed idea of having FTF in Feb/Mar timeframe separate from IUC and in
> 
> Boston area.
> 
>>thanks,
>>
>>Addison
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: public-i18n-ws-request@w3.org
>>>[mailto:public-i18n-ws-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Addison Phillips [wM]
>>>Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 3:04 PM
>>>To: public-i18n-ws@w3.org
>>>Subject: [I18N-WSTF] [REMINDER] Teleconference Tomorrow
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>W3C-I18N-WG Web Services TF teleconference [WSTF]
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>-----------
>>>Bridge   : +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim) with conference code 4186
>>>(spells "I18N")
>>>Duration : 60 minutes
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>-----------
>>>Day      : Tuesday
>>>Dates    : 14, 28 January
>>>Start    : 23:00 GMT, 18:00 Eastern, 15:00 Pacific, 08:00 Tokyo
>>>(next day!)
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>-----------
>>>Zakim information    : http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim
>>>Zakim bridge monitor : http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/Zakim.html
>>>Zakim IRC bot        : http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>-----------
>>>
>>>REMINDER: the next scheduled teleconference for the WSTF is
>>>tomorrow. If you have not used the W3C teleconference bridge
>>>previously, please review the links above for instructions (it's
>>>very easy).
>>>
>>>SUMMARY: This is an important meeting. We'll be reviewing
>>>activities related to people's positions regarding locales and
>>>language negotiation. Deb and I have both sent positions to the
>>>list. Please review these, as they'll be the main topic. If you
>>>intend to send something for consideration, you should do it quickly.
>>>
>>>I have reserved 9 total slots on the bridge. Since we've picked
>>>up in attendence, I'm keeping the number steady for now.
>>>
>>>Agenda
>>>=============================
>>>           o Discuss Agenda.
>>>           o Discuss Action Items.
>>>           o Discuss next FTF meeting. Tentatively at IUC23 in Prague.
>>>           o Activity to take on locales and languages.
>>>
>>>Pending Action Items
>>>====================
>>>1. Martin: will follow up with Russ Rolfe in case MS has any
>>>space in Prague for an FTF. This is a low priority item.
>>>2. Team: write up and send to list a "position" on the locale
>>>problem (See notes below for what that means). Due prior to next
>>
> meeting.
> 
>>>3. Deb: send specific comments on WSUS to list.
>>>4. Addison: post tentative calendar of activities for year.
>>>
>>>Usage Scenarios Working Draft
>>>=============================
>>>Can be reviewed here:
>>>http://www.w3.org/International/ws/ws-i18n-scenarios-edit
>>>
>>>
>>>Talk to you then!
>>>
>>>Best Regards,
>>>
>>>Addison
>>>
>>>Addison P. Phillips
>>>Director, Globalization Architecture
>>>webMethods, Inc.
>>>
>>>+1 408.962.5487  mailto:aphillips@webmethods.com
>>>-------------------------------------------
>>>Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature.
>>>
>>>Chair, W3C I18N WG Web Services Task Force
>>>http://www.w3.org/International/ws
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
webMethods, Inc.

+1 408.962.5487  mailto:aphillips@webmethods.com
-------------------------------------------
Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature.

Chair, W3C I18N WG Web Services Task Force
http://www.w3.org/International/ws

Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 23:59:49 UTC