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

FW: Raw minutes telcon 21/11/2002

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:44:27 -0800
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C08843EE5@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Adding attendance list and more detail on action items...

 Allen Brookes          Rogue Wave Software
 Roberto Chinnici       Sun Microsystems
 Glen Daniels           Macromedia
 Martin Gudgin          Microsoft
 Jacek Kopecky          Systinet
 Sandeep Kumar          Cisco Systems
 Amelia Lewis           TIBCO
 Steve Lind             AT&T
 Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
 Jonathan Marsh         Chair (Microsoft)
 Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce
 Jean-Jacques Moreau    Canon
 Don Mullen             Tibco
 Jeffrey Schlimmer      Microsoft
 Igor Sedukhin          Computer Associates
 Jerry Thrasher         Lexmark
 Sanjiva Weerawarana    IBM
 Don Wright             Lexmark
 Joyce Yang             Oracle
 Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.
 Barbara Zengler        DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology

 David Booth            W3C
 Youenn Fablet          Canon
 Dietmar Gaertner       Software AG
 Steve Graham           Global Grid Forum
 Philippe Le Hégaret    W3C
 Arthur Ryman           IBM
 William Vambenepe      Hewlett-Packard

3.  Review of Action items.
DONE      2002-09-10: Gudge to provide summary of using W3C XML Schema
                      to wrap other type systems at an appropriate level
                      of abstraction.
DONE      2002-10-17: Gudge and A. Lewis to make a proposal for
                      describing xs:import and (apparently) xs:schema 
                      as "required" extensibility elements. 
OBSOLETE  2002-11-07: Jonathan to dig up use cases for various kinds 
                      of equivalence in archives, etc.
DONE      2002-11-11: Part 1 editors to add to an appendix outlining the
                      areas requiring transitional documentation.  
                      Specific text TBD.
DONE [.1] 2002-11-11: David O will post a summary of URN and fragment
                      identifiers with namespace issues to TAG.
PENDING   2002-11-11: Arthur will submit targetNamespace/simplifiedNun 
                      text to editors to be included in part 1 as 
                      non-normative appendix, including a note 
                      regarding non backward compatibility with wsdl 
PENDING   2002-11-12: Paco will write two options for naming faults: 
                      schema vs WSDL.
PENDING   2002-11-12: Roberto will try and come up with another proposal

                      for eliminating message, the discussion goes to 
                      email or the next f2f.
PENDING   2002-11-12: Marsh to contact the XMLP WG (and later the wider
                      public) speaking about the issues around removing 
                      the use attribute.
DONE      2002-11-12: Gudge to ammend WSDL schema to use substitution 
                      groups for extensibility rather than wild cards.
  [Long discussion]

  Marsh: Would prefer comments in Schema rather than prose in spec 
  describing the Schemas.
  Gudge: No worries.
  [We will add prose in spec.]

PENDING   2002-11-12: Glen and Paco to chase the Global Grid Forum 
                      WRT services implementing a single portType.
PENDING   2002-11-13: Glen to write the 2 proposals for specifying
                      properties and send them to the list (1 = add
                      <*:property> to <binding>, 2 = move protocol 
                      binding stuff including properties to ports.)

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Nov/0050.html


New drafts for review by next Friday

New issues

* Prasad: express optionality from SOAP headers (from WS-I)
* Youenn: open content model and extensibility

MediaType registration

Marsh: minutes from f2f incorrect. Recall:
* Yes, register mediatype; follow TAG process
* Add issue to spec appendix: text/xml or application/wsdl+xml

jjm: this is what I recall as well. Part 1 contains new
mediatype appendix, with ednote as you have just highlighted.


Marsh: notify TAG we're doing something broken? new TAG issue? 
simply tell TAG we're done?
JeffS: Arthur not on the call.
Marsh: think this is exactly issue 28 (fragment identifier)
Marsh: suggest send message to TAG when we incorporate Arthur's 
text into spec. Reasonnable?

No objections.

8) Alternative schema languages

Marsh: just read text from Amy. Jack?
Jack: Amy's examples are misleading (or broken)
Amy: why should type and element be reserved for XML Schema?
Gudge: difficult, because in RelaxNG, don't have QNames
Amy: this is why I did it this way
Jack: would be simpler and easier if make them XML Schema specific
Amy: example of such schema that does not support?
Sanjiva: people have been asking for MIME explaination
Glen: link with SOAP w/ attachment?
Sanjiva: two independent things.
Amy: can't use WSDL with other schema language
Sanjiva: yes you can, with new attribute
Jack: what if import RelaxNG and XMLSchema, how would we know 
which schema we point to?
Amy: described in proposed text
Gudge: proposal needs to be refined
Jack: ok, likes the proposal overall
Marsh: include in Dec 6 draft?
Snajiva: must support multiple schema languages. In addition, use 
type element for that.
Amy: impacted by removal of message element
JeffS: add to the spec, be assertive we will support other schema 

Straw poll:
Option 1: reuse element and type attribute
Option 2: used qualified attributes for other schema languages
Option 3: reused element and type attribute for schema languages 
described in XML only

Option 1: 0
Option 2: 5
Option 3: 10
Abstentions: 5

Marsh: option 3
Jack: how to solve Amy's issue?
Gudge: new issue; solve later.
Amy: not permitted; open question.
Marsh: incoporate text for Dec 6 draft, with Jack's issue?
Gudge: yes, will make necessary changes to Amy's text

9) SOAP headers independent of SOAP modules

Marsh: just noticed JJM posted mail on XMLP; any action?
JJM: little reaction from XMLP
Glen: do you think we need this? I don't
JJM: fine with status quo

No objection to status quo.

Marsh: won't track this thread any more

10) @@@

Marsh: waiting for revised proposal from Roberto
Roberto: keep it on email for a while

11) Output operation

Marsh: data trader operation. How to move that forward?
Amy: TIBCO feels tied up with feature support and Don's named MEPs.

12) Revised proposal from Amy

Marsh: (for Barbara and Prasad) broke feature proposal into 
manageable chunks. Had trouble at highler level of abstraction. Amy?
Amy: write of where I think we should be going. Contains a number 
of clarifications. Low enough in impact and flexible enough. New 
element as child of binding (protocolBinding). May contain 
propertyConstraint or featureBindings, which themselves may 
contain propertyConstraints. Impact low, but enough functionalities.
Glen: mechanims like this required. Like some aspects. Overlap 
some other work: protocol binding that wraps up in URI both 
binding to SOAP and to particular SOAP protocol binding. 
PropertyConstraints at SOAP wide level. We're missing ability to 
separate SOAP binding from underneath protocol binding.
JJM: also would like clearer separation between message 
serialization (for example XML SOAP) and underlying protocol 
binding (for example SOAP over HTTP or SOAP over Email).
Glen: support particular property constraints within particular 
Marsh: continue to email; amend Amy's proposal
JJM: may provide a list of issue brought out so far, so can 
compare the proposals and see missing features. No time for next 
week; maybe week after that.

13) MEP support in operation

Marsh: Don's proposal
JJM: no time to read it
Glen: like it!
Don: link between operations and MEPs
Jack: WSDL MEPs are different from SOAP MEPs
Sanjiva: agree, but don't think this is what Don's proposing
Glen: MEPs should move from XMLP to WS-Arch
JeffS: operations today are a sequence of messages?
Sanjiva: yes
JeffS: so, if had more than one, whether MEP, would be a sequence?
Sanjiva: one possible semantic; would not recommend that
Glenn: branching?
JeffS: if operations are not primitive, why have multiple 
operations per porttype?
Sanjiva: MEP would describe message involved with that specific 
interactions. Input output not enough
Jack: two MEPs in WSDL currently. If go further, will do 
choreography work
JJM: wouldn't choreography build on that fundation?
Amy: yes, current two MEPs are not sufficient
Glen: need define boundary with choreography; but can still 
explore the issue
Amy: not promote definition of MEPs that turn into choreography, 
but should be able to express, for example, request-response MEPs 
with different semantics.
Marsh: what next? how roles work?
Jack: how SOAP MEPs are WSDL MEPs.
Sanjiva: why SOAP dependency? Don is simply suggesting message 
flow semantics.
Jack: pb with example; Don uses SOAP MEP URI.
Marsh: what's benefit if can't reuse SOAP URIs?
Sanjiva: e.g., TIBCO and Microsoft have different semantics for 
Glen: need to connect with SOAP MEPs. Could refer to abstract 
MEPs. Common framework for all spec.
Sanjiva: SOAP MEPs would come at the binding level.
Marsh: rewrite SOAP req-resp MEP in a WSDL friendly way. Better 
if also SOAP friendly. Can't rely on XMLP or WS-Arch. Should come 
up with example. Any one with time and interest?
Sanjiva: current proposal simply extends current model.
Amy: Marsh would like abstract req-resp pattern. Would offer to 
do this, but not sure right person.
Marsh: can't unify SOAP and WSDL MEPs. Need evidence.
Don: will detail changes/addition necessary to unify SOAP and 

Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 12:45:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:26 UTC