W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2002

Web Services Description Working Group 2002-03-21 meeting minutes

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:35:49 -0800
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C0554C93F@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Web Services Description Working Group
2002-03-21 meeting minutes

Full minutes: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/03-21-minutes (members only)

- David Booth, W3C 
- Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems 
- Laurent De Teneuille, L'Echangeur 
- Youenn Fablet, Canon 
- Dietmar Gaertner, Software AG 
- Tom Jordahl, Macromedia 
- Jacek Kopecky, Systinet 
- Sandeep Kumar, Cisco Systems 
- Philippe Le Hégaret, W3C 
- Steve Lind, AT&T 
- Pallavi Malu, Intel 
- Jonathan Marsh, Microsoft Corporation 
- Jeff Mischkinsky, Oracle Corporation 
- Dale Moberg, Cyclone Commerce 
- Radhika Roy, AT&T 
- Adi Sakala, IONA Technologies 
- Jeffrey Schlimmer, Microsoft Corporation 
- Igor Sedukhin, Computer Associates 
- Sandra Swearingen, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force 
- William Stumbo, Xerox 
- Jerry Thrasher, Lexmark 
- William Vambenepe, Hewlett-Packard Company 
- Sanjiva Weerawarana, IBM Corporation 

- Mike Ballantyne, Electronic Data Systems 
- Keith Ballinger, Microsoft Corporation 
- Michael Champion, Software AG 
- Alan Kotok, DISA 
- Dan Kulp, IONA 
- Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP 
- Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon 
- Jochen Ruetschlin, DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology 
- Arthur Ryman, IBM 
- Waqar Sadiq, Electronic Data Systems 
- Dave Solo, Citigroup 
- Prasad Yendluri, webMethods, Inc. 
- Don Wright, Lexmark 

- Glen Daniels, Macromedia 
- Mike Davoren, W. W. Grainger 
- Tim Finin, University of Maryland 
- Martin Gudgin, DevelopMentor 
- Mario Jeckle, DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology 
- Michael Mealling, Verisign 
- Mike McHugh, W. W. Grainger 
- Johan Pauhlsson, L'Echangeur 
- Stefano Pugliani, Sun 
- Krishna Sankar, Cisco Systems 
- Daniel Schutzer, Citigroup 
- Aaron Skonnard, DevelopMentor 

1. New members 
2. Approval of minutes 
3. Review Action Items 
4. Face to Face Meetings 
5. Continuation of last week's WS-I/WSDL discussion 
6. Use Cases 
7. Requirements 

Agenda items
1. New members
Don Mullen of Tibco joined the working group. Welcome.

2. Approval of minutes.
March 14 minutes approved.

3. Review Action Items
- ONGOING 2002.02.14. Jonathan Marsh. Map Face-to-Face meetings 6 months in
- ONGOING 2002-03-07. Philippe. Set up authors with CVS. 
    2 CVS accounts; waiting for other requests.
    SSH keys - gen with sshgen, editors should require keys.
    URL to CVS page http://www.w3.org/Project/CVSdoc 
- ONGOING 2002.03.07. Jeffrey and Keith will go propose new text for DR042. 
- ONGOING 2002.03.07. Keith. Discuss open content model design. 
- DONE 2002.03.14. Sandeep. Requirement for defining capabilities for description. 
  Message describing capabilities for WS description is on archive
  Jonathan: ACTION item to Jeffrey and Keith to add DR042 to req doc 
- ONGOING 2002.03.14: DavidB will request a phone bridges for the duration of 
  the meeting.
    Requested phone bridges (10 lines) for the duration of the meeting; no 
    answer yet. 
- ONGOING 2002.03.14: Sandeep will take a first pass at providing snippets for 
  use cases in 2.1 Messaging. 
    Sandeep: Different viewpoints. Trying to categorize the use cases.
    Will divide the work equally between Waquar and me.
    Get back to the originators for better understanding. 

4. Face to Face Meetings

Jonathan: F2F registration still open. 14 confirmed. 4 regrets. 31 open.

ACTION: to all: please register or send regrets.

5. Continuation of last week's WS-I/WSDL discussion

Jonathan: What is our objective? What kind of spec should this group produce?
  a. WSDL 1.2 based on WSDL 1.1 which addresses ambiguities, interoperability problems and integration with other specs
  b. Start from scratch in defining a WS Description language with the same (similar) functionality level as WSDL 1.1
  c. WSDL 2.0 with added functionality including significant new functionality

Jonathan: Is there a champion for option c? 

David: A significant amount of new functionality is out of scope 

Jonathan: WSDL has no concept of inheritance. Do we want to be able to leverage inheritance?

Charter is not clear. From last week's discussion inheritance may be in our scope. 

David: Before we decide on something like inheritance or go for option c, we need the results from the arch group. We better narrow the scope and fix WSDL 1.1 for now. 

Youenn: inheritance: don't think the arch group will do that for us. It is up to us to decide on this. 

Jacek: If we are only improving WSDL 1.1 (as is imposed by the charter) there are two ways:
  a. start from scratch and come up with something very similar to WSDL 1.1
  b. patch WSDL 1.1 

Roberto: I would not put inheritance and extensions in category c "significant new functionality". 

Sanjiva: If something is like WSDL 1.1 and has no new functionality there is no critical reason for users to switch from WSDL 1.1. Market value is important. 

Jacek : We could do something like WSDL 1.1 (almost the same syntax) but fix the issues with WSDL 1.1 at least. 

Abstract Model

Jonathan: Abstract Model that the description language would follow.
Don't have a good feel what an ideal AM would be. 

David: Isn't the AM something that would come out of the arch group? 

Sanjiva: Seems that it is up to us to define the model we are working on.
There is an UML model of WSCL. We can look into concrete examples and see what is broken and what works. 

Dale: We don't have to meet all requirements in WSDL 1.2. We can meet some and carry others over to WSDL 2.0. 

Jonathan: requirements can be used to decide what we will do or to get a common understanding of the problem. We can mark some of them as "out-of-scope" for the first version.

Sandeep: Can we identify the req's that we want to meet this round and leave 
sufficient extensibility points to meet other req's in the future?

Jonathan: Take some requirements and show that extension points are sufficient to plug in requirements. If we get req's for new features we can go back to the req doc and mark them as such.

Accomodating req's via extensibility is one way to accomodate them. 

Jonathan: Major issues list: which ones are the big issues?
What are the 5 top things in WSDl 1.1 that are broken and how to fix them? 

Jonathan: How to proceed:
1. editors comes up with an abstract model draft to help judge WSDL 1.1
2. editors come up with an issues list to be addressed at the F2F (top 5 things that are completely broken in WSDL 1.1)
3. editors make sure the req's doc is clear about what is in the 1st version and what in a later one or an extension

I propose that the editors put the issues in our version of WSDL itself. One approach is to start with the top 5 things broken in WSDL 1.1.

ACTION item for editors (Jeff/Sanjiva): do presentations of 1-2 at the F2F (yourself or delegate).

ACTION: Jeffrey to make sure we are converging on 3 categories of requirements. 

Jeffrey: Propose to fulfill this action item by updating the front matter of the req's draft to cover this and then label each req appropriately. 

Jonathan: Is somebody offering to do the AM? 

Sanjiva: Post to the list and ask. 

Jonathan: It should not be a formal model (UML or other notation) More like the one in the SOAP 1.2 draft. 

Sanjiva: AM is probably very useful and a good stake in the ground 

Jonathan: It is more important to get an AM done even if it is based on the existing WSDL 1.1 or even a personal view 

David: there is no need to be formalized 

???: I think this will put some people off... 

Youenn: Probably Jean Jaques could be interested in writing an AM 

Jonathan: Nice if we could have a draft at the F2F

ACTION: Youenn will ask Jean-Jacques if he is willing to provide an abstract model.

ACTION: Jeffrey will investigate the possibility of an abstract model (but isn't promising to make one himself).

Apart from the AM most of the F2F time will be spent on req's and definition of "significant new features". 

6. Use Cases

Jonathan: Possibility of accepting the UC doc and give people the possibility to open issues against it. This puts the burden on the reviewers rather than on the editors. 

Sandeep: Waquar and I plan to categorise use-cases. 3 viewpoints:
1. ... def contract ...
2. ... implements ...
3. ... semantically ...

[Scriber's note: line was very, very noisy... I'd appreciate some clarifying feedback.] 

Jonathan: Sounds reasonable. Categorization is useful. Go for it. Give editors a categorization method. 

7. Requirements

Jonathan: Jeff posted a new version of the req doc. 

David: Arch group mailing list thread on def of Web services. Changed def of WS to use that of the Arch group. 

Jonathan: Definition of Message, Operation, Binding, Port, Service: 

Roberto: Binding. Split into two parts. E.g. one binding to SOAP and then binding to HTTP. This would allow for a primary binding and then possibly multiple bindings to protocols. 

Jeffrey: Can we add a sentence about the binding might be "partial"? 

David: Other solution to define binding more broadly as an association between protocol and data format or interface and concrete protocol. 

Sandeep: Two kinds of bindings: protocol and transport bindings. 

David: New wording:
"An association between an Interface and a concrete protocol and/or a data format. A Binding specifies the protocol and/or data format to be used in transmitting messages defined by the associated Interface." 

Sanjiva: In general many aspects of a service may be bindable 

Jonathan: Do we need a new terminology for binding (like) functionality? 

Sanjiva: Binding - a set of concerns (?) applied to a description WSDL tells a user of a service what he has to do to access the service: wire format, transport, QoS and so on. 

???: Binding, to cover all those terms 

???: Policies: extra mechanism to capture such 

Sanjiva: Policy is a risky word... 

David: might be better to keep the term Binding for the narrowed WSDL 1.1 sense. for the broader sense, we need a new term. 

???: what about service binding? 

Jeffrey: in definition of 'Port' the second sentence seems redundant? 

David: It is. 

Sanjiva: Port is something we can address 

David: A Port is: "An association between a fully specified Binding and a network address, specified by a URI, that may be used to communicate with an instance of a Service." 

Jeffrey: An association between an Interface and a concrete protocol, a data format, and/or an end-point address? 

Jonathan: Change the term port in the spec to endpoint? 

???: Resource rather than port? 

???: Or address? 

???: The definition of port is more than a URI. It is an association of bindings and URI. 

???: Endpoint. 

???: Is good. 

Jonathan: Port or endpoint are synonymous (was port in WSDL 1.1). 

Philippe: InterfaceBinding instead of just binding? 

David: An association between an Interface and a concrete protocol and/or a data format. An InterfaceBinding specifies the protocol and/or data format to be used in transmitting messages defined 

Jonathan: No harm in that. May help. 

Jonathan: Rewording:
- Binding -> InterfaceBinding 
- Service -> WebService 
- Port -> Endpoint. 
by the associated Interface. 

Summary of new Action Items
- 2002.02.14. Jonathan Marsh will map the Face-to-Face meetings 6 months in advance. 
- 2002-03-07. Philippe. Set up authors with CVS. 
- 2002.03.07. Jeffrey and Keith will go propose new text for DR042. 
- 2002.03.07. Keith to discuss open content model design. 
- 2002.03.14: DavidB will request a phone bridges for the duration of the meeting. 
- 2002.03.14: Sandeep will take a first pass at providing snippets for use cases in 2.1 Messaging. 
- 2002.03.21. Jeffrey and Keith. Add DR042 to req doc 
- 2002.03.21. To all. please register for Apr F2F or send regrets 
- 2002.03.21. Sandeep. Send F2F dinner invitations to arch/desc group 
- 2002.03.21. Laurent/Jonathan. Investigate June F2F hosting in Paris 
- 2002.03.21. Jeffrey. Make sure we are converging on 3 categories of requirements 
- 2002.03.21. Youenn. Ask Jean-Jacque if he is willing to provide an abstract model. 
- 2002.03.21. Jeffrey. Investigate the possibility of an abstract model (but without promising to make one himself). 
- 2002.03.21. Editors (Jeff/Sanjiva). Do presentations of AM draft and top 5 broken items in WSDL 1.1 at the F2F (yourself or delegate). 

Scribe: Dietmar Gaertner
Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 10:36:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:20 UTC