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

Minutes 30 May 2002 WS Desc telcon

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:20:32 -0700
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C0634BE15@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Minutes of the 30 May 2002 WS Desc telcon



 David Booth            W3C

 Allen Brookes          Rogue Wave Software

 Roberto Chinnici       Sun Microsystems

 Glen Daniels           Macromedia

 Tom Jordahl            Macromedia

 Jacek Kopecky          Systinet

 Sandeep Kumar          Cisco Systems

 Philippe Le Hégaret    W3C

 Steve Lind             AT&T

 Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP

 Michael Mahan          Nokia

 Jonathan Marsh         Microsoft

 Jeff Mischkinsky       Oracle

 Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce

 Johan Pauhlsson        L'Echangeur

 Arthur Ryman           IBM

 Adi Sakala             IONA Technologies

 Jeffrey Schlimmer      Microsoft

 Igor Sedukhin          Computer Associates

 Jerry Thrasher         Lexmark

 Sanjiva Weerawarana    IBM

 Don Wright             Lexmark

 Joyce Yang             Oracle

 Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.



 Mike Ballantyne        Electronic Data Systems

 Keith Ballinger        Microsoft

 Michael Champion       Software AG

 Laurent De Teneuille   L'Echangeur

 Tim Finin              University of Maryland

 Mario Jeckle           DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology

 Dan Kulp               IONA

 Pallavi Malu           Intel

 Michael Mealling       Verisign

 Jean-Jacques Moreau    Canon

 Stefano Pogliani       Sun

 Jochen Ruetschlin      DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology

 Waqar Sadiq            Electronic Data Systems

 Krishna Sankar         Cisco Systems

 Daniel Schutzer        Citigroup

 Dave Solo              Citigroup

 William Vambenepe      Hewlett-Packard



 Mike Davoren           W. W. Grainger

 Youenn Fablet          Canon

 Dietmar Gaertner       Software AG

 Mike McHugh            W. W. Grainger

 Don Mullen             Tibco

 William Stumbo         Xerox

 Sandra Swearingen      U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force





1.  Assign scribe.
      Sandeep Kumar (David Booth for last part)
2.  Approval of minutes [6].
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002May/att-0223/01-minutes-irc-02-05-23.htm


JM: 1 problem with last telcon minutes. Mike Ballantyne was marked absent but he was present.  We will change it and approve the minutes.

3.  Review of Action items.
PENDING 2002.05.23: GlenD to post email adding an issue: Are MEP's hard 
                 coded in the spec, or can they be extended through 
PENDING 2002.05.23: JeffM to write up rationale for dropping operation
DONE 2002.05.23: Philippe to update status section of the usage
                 scenarios doc
PENDING 2002.05.23: Philippe, Jonathan, Waqar to work on getting the usage
                 scenarios published.
DONE 2002.05.23: Prasad, JeffS close the current issue, and have Prasad 
                 open a new issue re-titled "Negative Acknowledgement" 
DONE 2002.05.23: Roberto to take another round at updating his
                 extensibility proposal
4.  Abstract Model TF.  New member: Sandeep.
  Discussions on AMTF findings to be included in F2F.
5.  Usage Scenarios.
Publication status.


JM: Jonathan has added references to the Usage Scenario documents and send it for Director's approval for publication. Hopefully, within a few days we will publish the document.


Philippe: Yes.


6.  FTF stuff


JM: Is there any F2F dial-in commitments? (none) 

ACTION: Jonathan will send email to the group regarding this.

JM: Request for Martin Gudgin as the invited expert from Microsoft. In a couple of weeks, he will be replacing Keith Ballinger as the Microsoft member. He would like to observe until then. Any objection?


JK: Accept.

Jeff M.: What are the rights of the observer?

JM: He has not been very strict about it so far on Straw Polls, comments, etc. For formal votes, only members for sure.

Jeff M.: Concerns around Straw Polls.

JM: He will apply a local poicy where Martin and Keith to be counted as 1 for Straw Poll purposes.  Any other concerns?

JM: None, so we will proceed as above.


JM: F2F registration ends tomorrow and he has a fairly stable list. Any logistical questions?

DB: F2F registration ends today, actually. 


Tom: Is there a Joint Dinner with the Arch Group on Wed.?

Y: There is a Joint Lunch with Arch group and he is working Joint Dinner for 11th and 12th.


7.  Issues.  Issue list at [10]. Latest draft of the spec at [11].
[10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html
[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002May/att-0144/02-part1.html
No new issues
7a: Issue: Overloading operations
Awaiting action from JeffM?

JM: We are in agreement that Overloaded Operations will not be supported. 

Jeff M. to write the rationale and we can close on this issue.

7b. Issue: Extensibility/Open Content Model
Roberto's revised extensibility proposal (sorry, message doesn't appear
in the archive).  Straw poll on whether to pursue simplifications or
accept the proposal as is.

JM: Doesn't appear to be any consensus yet on what Roberto & Igor are proposing and what Sanjeeva is proposing on simplicity.

JM: At this point I think it might be a good idea to do a Straw Poll or do we need more info?


Igor: 2 proposals conflict around simplicity - either everyting is required or everything is optional. Roberto's orig. proposal was to allow both.

Roberto: The orig. proposal was not biased.

JM: Jeff's table has only 2 values: MUST or MAY. Rest is all details.

Igor: Too many combinations with additional parameters.

DB: +1 on Sanjeeva's Simplicity proposal. 

Igor: Nobody wants to say No to simplification.

Igor: A global declaration is yet another parameter.

JM: Shall we do a Straw Poll?

Igor: Straw Poll on what?

DB: Straw-Poll on default True/False ..

Igor: Open content model (?)



Igor: WSDL has to be Human readable

Jeff M.: Questions whether WSDL should be Human readable. Mostly for tools.

Igor: At least it has to Human verifiable.


JM: Let us focus on Functionality.


Roberto: What happens w/ attributes in Simpler Case?

It applies to all elememts and all attributes?


Jeff S.: Pros would be needed. Whether we need Must attributes? Not possible in WSDL 1.1.

Global extension declarations. They are all required or not. Table should reflect that. 


JM: Let us breakdown functionality. Notate in file whether extension is required.

Igor: Simplification can be built with Global flag.

GD: Why can't we take the same approach as SOAP does?

JM: Straw-Poll on following three options:

a. Granularity on NameSpace level.

b. Granularity on Elements level.

c. Both the above.


Igor: Sanjeeva's proposal is on attributes, right?

DB: Simplicity has multiple meanings: (a) Writing is simpler (b) Semantically it is simpler


JS: We should go for Semantically Simpler


JS: What would be the processing model for Imports?

GD: Process all imports first.

JS: Makes sense.


GD: Namespace is potentially a mistake.


GD: Closer to SOAP, better


GD: QNames represent extensions and they are required


GD: Describes the proposal using an example of security extensions with 5 elements QNames are MustUnderstood and all the 1000 elements are MustUnderstood as well.


[Scribe changes to David Booth]


GlenD: You can make up a token, and make it required, that implies that you must also understand several other elements.

DBooth: This is an application level contract.

Igors: I don't think Roberto's proposal is opposing what we're discussing. I think we're discussing how to indicate requiredness

... Do we need granularity per element?

... How do we declare?  By namespace?  By qname? etc.

JM: ANd also what do we do about attributes?

... There isn't an easy way to annotate individual attributes.

GlenD: Yes there is.

ACTION: GlenD to write up his ideas re: extensibility

DBooth: The more I think about Glen's suggestion, the more I like it.  I don't think it would be good to use a namespace to indicate blanket "requiredness".

JM: We could choose either the WSDL required element or attribute.

GlenD: Or both.

JM: I'd like to see examples of likely extension scenarios.  E.g., an extension element that contains within it, different namespaces.



7c. Issue: Optional parts in <message/>
Thread starts at [22].  What is the status of this issue?
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002May/0004.html

JeffS: We decided earlier that we don't want to further extend WSDL-specific parts for functionality.

JM: Are the other issues in the draft or on our issues list?  Are we actively discussing them?

JeffS: We decided we will not add optionality to message parts.

... Also we will leave the message construct alone.

Prasad: I had some things to say on these issues.  Most of the WS would come from existing implementations in organizations.  There are lots of existing schemas that people want to reuse.  There are constructs now that use different schema features.  The good thing about the message construct is that it allows multiple parts to be assembled into one entity.

... You want to be able to have attachment that are optional in messages.

... At least you should have a place holder.

JM: Do we have a process for deferring an issue?

... We decided we will not do optional parts, so we just need to remember that.

JM: So I guess we're done on that.

JeffS: I think we should mark these two off the list.

Prasad: We agreed we will not remove WSDL:Message from 1.2.

... To really address this issue we need to decide whether "message" should go.

JM: Can we decide this without deciding 2.0 issues first?

Prasad: We could defer this pending resolution of the other issue.  (Beyond 1.2)

GlenD: General note: I'm a little concerned by the group's tendency to steam-roller past several of these issues without considering them.  I'd like this language to, as quickly as possible, be something that we want to carry into the future.

... So I don't think we should too blithely sweep issues off to 2.0.

... I.e., If we later at a F2F come up with something good, I don't think we should be prevented from discussing it.

JM: As chair I need to be careful to avoid covering ground that was already covered, but if there's new information, that's different.

... So to the best of our knowledge now, we don't see the value of changing the "message" construct, so we'll leave it as is unless new info comes up.

Prasad: The spec describes things as optional, but isn't clear.  We need to fix that.

... It is inconsistent.

ACTION: Prasad to raise an issue of spec inconsistency about optional parts.

7d: Issue: Negative Acknowledgement
Issue recast at [12].
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002May/0232.html

TJordahl: If a notivfication msg is only one way, then there can't be a response, so I don't understand why this is an issue.

JM: Yes, that's why Prasad retitled the issue.

TJordahl: If you want to know if an operation failed, then you should get a response that may be empty if there's no problem.

JeffS: Negative Ack is a pretty common protocol paradigm.

Philippe: The definition of "fault" is not clear enough in WSDL.  Is it an app fault?  A protocol fault?  If I don't understand an extension, is it a fault?

JeffS: If Soap headers are not understood, then it is a fault.

... WSDL was not clear.  We should be clearer.

DBooth: I agree with Philippe.  ALso, the purpose of NAck is to save bandwidth.  That purpose is omportant for wire protocols, but may be less relevant at the Web Service level.

JM: We need a concrete proposal to discuss.

TJordahl: I think adding another MEP (NAck) would make WSDL more complicated, and I wouldn't favor it.  It may be one of those things that nobody implements.

... It doesn't make WSDL "more friendly", it just makes it "more".

JM: I have seen Prasad's interest.  ARe there others interested in it also?

(No response)

JM: Straw poll: SHould we close the issue or entertain a proposal?



JM: JeffS and Prasad in favor continuing the issue; all others were for closing the issue.

JM: Objections to closing?

Prasad: I think people will see later that they'll need it, but I'm willing to close it.

JeffS: I'm willing to go along with closing it also.

JM: It seems like an interesting feature, but most people view it as not in the minimal set that we need.


[Meeting adjourned]


[Chair reminds members to start discussion of remaining issues for next week:
7e. Issue: remove solicit-response and output-only operations?
7f. Issue(s): Non-SOAP HTTP Binding
7g. Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses?
7h. Issue: portType extensibility.
7i. Issue: service type.]


Summary of Action Items:

2002.05.23: GlenD to post email adding an issue: Are MEP's hard 
            coded in the spec, or can they be extended through 
2002.05.23: JeffM to write up rationale for dropping operation
2002.05.23: Philippe, Jonathan, Waqar to work on getting the usage
            scenarios published.

2002.05.30: Jonathan will send email to the group regarding this.

2002.05.30: Prasad to raise an issue of spec inconsistency about 

            optional parts.

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 14:21:45 UTC

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