- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:06:41 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I've been looking at SOAP Encoding <-> RDF mappings. Unless anyone else leaps forward, I'd be happy to work on Last Call review of SOAP 1.2, hopefully with participation from others on the WG. I also need to ping the RDF IG folk. Can we have a brief agenda slot for this on friday? Dan On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Brian McBride wrote: > > > >Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:34:59 -0400 (EDT) > >To: chairs@w3.org > >X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 > >From: "David Fallside" <fallside@us.ibm.com> > >Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:33:42 -0700 > >X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM005/03/M/IBM(Release 5.0.10 > >|March 22, 2002) at > > 06/26/2002 10:34:50 AM > >Subject: XML Protocol WG's Last Call for Review of SOAP 1.2 > >Resent-From: chairs@w3.org > >X-Mailing-List: <chairs@w3.org> archive/latest/2006 > >X-Loop: chairs@w3.org > >Sender: chairs-request@w3.org > >Resent-Sender: chairs-request@w3.org > >List-Id: <chairs.w3.org> > >List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/> > >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:chairs-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe> > >X-MailScanner: Found to be clean > > > > > >----- Forwarded by David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM on 06/26/2002 09:33 AM > >----- > >|---------+----------------------------> > >| | David Fallside | > >| | | > >| | 06/26/2002 09:32 | > >| | AM | > >| | | > >|---------+----------------------------> > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > | > > | > > | To: xml-dist-app@w3.org > > | > > | cc: > > | > > | From: David Fallside/Santa > > Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > > | > > | Subject: XML Protocol WG's Last Call for Review of SOAP > > 1.2 | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > > > > > > >==== > >I. This is the last call announcement from the XML Protocol Working Group > >(XMLP WG) for review of the SOAP Version 1.2 specification. > > > >==== > >II. Request for Document Reviews. > > > >The XMLP WG asks for reviews of the following five documents: > > > >-- SOAP Version 1.2 Part 0: Primer [1] > >Abstract. "SOAP Version 1.2 Part 0: Primer is a non-normative document > >intended to provide an easily understandable tutorial on the features of > >the SOAP Version 1.2 specifications. In particular, it describes the > >features through various usage scenarios, and is intended to complement the > >normative text contained in Part 1 and Part 2 of the SOAP 1.2 > >specifications." > > > >-- SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework [2] > >Abstract. "SOAP Version 1.2 is a lightweight protocol intended for > >exchanging structured information in a decentralized, distributed > >environment. "Part 1: Messaging Framework" defines, using XML technologies, > >an extensible messaging framework containing a message construct that can > >be exchanged over a variety of underlying protocols." > > > >-- SOAP Version 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts [3] > >Abstract. "SOAP Version 1.2 is a lightweight protocol intended for > >exchanging structured information in a decentralized, distributed > >environment. SOAP Version 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts defines a set of adjuncts > >that may be used with SOAP Version 1.2 Part1: Messaging Framework. This > >specification depends on SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework." > > > >-- The "application/soap+xml" media type [4] > >Abstract. "This document defines the "application/soap+xml" media type > >which can be used to describe SOAP 1.2 messages serialized as XML." > >The XMLP WG asks for review of the media type document with the same level > >of priority as the other documents in section II; see section IV for a > >statement of the WG's intentions with regard the media type document. > > > >-- SOAP Version 1.2 Specification Assertions and Test Collection [5] > >Abstract. "This document draws on assertions found in the SOAP Version 1.2 > >specifications, and provides a set of tests in order to show whether the > >assertions are implemented in a SOAP processor. > > > >A SOAP 1.2 implementation that passes all of the tests specified in this > >document may claim to conform to the SOAP 1.2 Test Suite, 2002/06/26. It is > >incorrect to claim to be compliant with the SOAP Version 1.2 specifications > >merely by passing successfully all the tests provided in this test suite. > >It is also incorrect to claim that an implementation is non complaint with > >the SOAP Version 1.2 specifications based on its failure to pass one or > >more of the tests in this test suite." > > > >All comments on any of these documents should be sent to > >xmlp-comments@w3.org. Please make sure that comments include document- and, > >if appropriate, section-references. The appropriate forum for discussion of > >any of these documents is the public W3C xml-dist-app mailing list [6]. > > > >==== > >III. Other documents. > > > >-- The XMLP WG is publishing "SOAP Version 1.2 Email Binding" (Note) [7] as > >an example of how to write a binding using the SOAP framework. Comments on > >this document (to xmlp-comments@w3.org) are welcome although the XMLP WG > >may not respond to comments on this document. > > > >-- The XMLP WG plans to publish a document (probably as a W3C Note) > >describing an Attachment Feature. This document will be started during the > >Last Call period and should be completed before SOAP 1.2 becomes a > >Recommendation. > > > >-- For the purpose of providing background information, the XMLP WG is > >publishing its Requirements [8] and Usage Scenarios [9] documents. No > >review of these documents is sought. > > > >==== > >IV. XMLP WG Intentions. > > > >-- Note the following statement regarding XMLP WG's intentions for the W3C > >Recommendation track. The statement appears in the Status sections of the > >SOAP 1.2 Parts 0, 1, 2, and Assertions and Test Collection documents > >[1][2][3][5], > >"Following completion of Last Call, the XML Protocol Working Group has > >agreed to advance the specification according to four exit criteria: > >1. Sufficient reports of implementation experience have been gathered to > >demonstrate that SOAP processors based on the specification are > >implementable and have compatible behavior. > >2. An implementation report shows that there are at least two different and > >interoperable implementations of every mandatory and optional feature. > >3. Formal responses to all comments received by the Working Group. > >4. If these criteria are met, the specification will advance to Proposed > >Recommendation. If the implementation exit criteria are not met then the > >specification will enter a Candidate Recommendation phase to ensure they > >are met." > > > >-- Note the following statement regarding XMLP WG's intentions for "The > >"application/soap+xml" media type" document [4]. The statement appears in > >the Status sections of SOAP 1.2 Parts 1 and 2 [2][3], > >"This document references "The 'application/soap+xml' media type" Internet > >Draft which defines the "application/soap+xml" media type. The XML Protocol > >Working Group intends to use in an IANA application to register the > >"application/soap+xml" media type. The Working Group also intends to > >incorporate the technical content of into a near future version of SOAP > >Version 1.2 Part 2, and to maintain that content as part of the SOAP > >specification." > > > >==== > >V. Implementation Experience. > >The XMLP WG seeks feedback on the SOAP 1.2 specification based on > >experience gained from implementing the specification. More specifically, > >the WG is interested in which features of the specification have been > >implemented, whether implemented features have interoperated with other > >implementations of those features. The WG asks implementers to send their > >feedback to xmlp-comments@w3.org, and it maintains a web page [10] for > >summarizing and tracking such feedback. > > > >==== > >VI. The Last Call review period ends at 5p Pacific Time, 19 July 2002. > > > >==== > >VII. The following W3C Working Groups are especially invited to provide > >review comments: > > > >-- I18N > >-- QA > >-- Semantic Web Activity (WG's therein) > >-- TAG > >-- Web Services Architecture > >-- Web Services Description > >-- XForms > >-- XKMS > >-- XML Core > >-- XML Encryption > >-- XML Schema > >-- XML Signature > > > >==== > >VIII. Patent Disclosures. > > > >A listing and summary of the IPR statements by XMLP WG members is available > >[11]. > > > >==== > >IX. The XMLP WG's decision to request Last Call is minuted at [12] > > > >==== > >X. References. > > > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part0 > >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1 > >[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2 > >[4] > >http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/18/draft-baker-soap-media-reg-01.txt > >[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-testcollection > >[6] xml-dist-app@w3.org > >[7] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-email > >[8] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlp-reqs > >[9] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlp-scenarios > >[10] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/soap1.2implementation.html > >[11] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/17-IPR-statements.html > >[12] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/12-minutes.html > > > >.............................................................. > >David C. Fallside > >Chair, XML Protocol Working Group > >Tel: 530.477.7169 > >fallside@us.ibm.com >
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 14:06:44 UTC