- From: Liu, Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:43:16 +0100
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Cc: jmarsh@microsoft.com
Is that only for me? I noticed that some times there is a serious delay for a message to reach the list - a couple of messages I sent quite a while ago just show up in the list today. Regards, Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: Liu, Kevin > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 5:56 PM > To: 'Stumbo, William K'; www-ws-desc@w3.org > Cc: jmarsh@microsoft.com > Subject: RE: Minutes: 19 Sept 2002 WS Description WG > > > > Hi Bill, Hi Jonathan, > > two minor corrections: > > 8. BindingType proposal from Kevin [12]. > > Response from Jacek [13]. > > > > 2002-09-19: Jeffery raised some concerns: > > It's Jacek who raised the concerns, not Jeffery > > > - data model for binding is inconsistent with > > other models. > > This is not a concern, instead it's brought up as a reason > for changing the current construct > > > Regards, > Kevin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stumbo, William K [mailto:WStumbo@crt.xerox.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 10:15 AM > > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > Cc: jmarsh@microsoft.com; Stumbo, William K > > Subject: Minutes: 19 Sept 2002 WS Description WG > > > > > > > > Web Services Description Working Group > > September 19, 2002 > > > > Attendance > > > > Present: > > Mike Ballantyne Electronic Data Systems > > David Booth W3C > > Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software > > Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems > > Glen Daniels Macromedia > > Youenn Fablet Canon > > Tom Jordahl Macromedia > > Jacek Kopecky Systinet > > Sandeep Kumar Cisco Systems > > Philippe Le Hégaret W3C > > Amelia Lewis TIBCO > > Kevin Canyang Liu SAP > > Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft) > > Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle > > Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce > > Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon > > Arthur Ryman IBM > > Waqar Sadiq Electronic Data Systems > > Adi Sakala IONA Technologies > > Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft > > Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates > > William Stumbo Xerox > > Jerry Thrasher Lexmark > > William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard > > Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM > > Don Wright Lexmark > > Joyce Yang Oracle > > > > Regrets: > > Michael Champion Software AG > > Laurent De Teneuille L'Echangeur > > Tim Finin University of Maryland > > Dietmar Gaertner Software AG > > Steve Graham Global Grid Forum > > Martin Gudgin Microsoft > > Dan Kulp IONA > > Steve Lind AT&T > > Michael Mealling Verisign > > Stefano Pogliani Sun > > Daniel Schutzer Citigroup > > Dave Solo Citigroup > > Steve Tuecke Global Grid Forum > > Barbara Zengler DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology > > Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc. > > > > Absent: > > Mike Davoren W. W. Grainger > > Michael Mahan Nokia > > Pallavi Malu Intel > > Mike McHugh W. W. Grainger > > Don Mullen Tibco > > Johan Pauhlsson L'Echangeur > > Sandra Swearingen U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force > > > > > > > > 1. Assign scribe. Lucky minute taker for this week is: > > Bill Stumbo (yee haw!) > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 2. Approval of minutes: > > - Sept 5 telcon [3] > > Approved. > > > > - Sept 9-11 FTF [4] > > Approved. > > > > Minor concern about misquotes in IRC log. Discussion > on minutes > > vs. transcription. General concern with identifying > key points. > > Suggestion to use section headings to help group topics. > > > > AI -- all: Send any missing action items to Jonathan's attention. > > > > > > [3] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0023.html > > [4] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0065.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 3. Review of Action items. > > DONE 2002-07-21: GlenD to send DavidB details on > hosting November > > F2F > > 2002-09-19: URL posted to IRC. [25] > > Glen states to expect additional updates > > [25] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/04/f2fNovLogistics.html > > > > RETIRED 2002-07-21: Jeffrey & Gudge to flesh out a proposal for > > omitting operation from soap binding. > > > > 2002-09-19: Part of the hoisting > > proposal. Need to > > verify > > completeness in upcoming draft. > > > > CONTINUE 2002-07-21: Don Mullen to write up > > an issue on making the transport attribute > > match the SOAP binding framework. > > > > 2002-09-19: Action item reworded. > > > > DONE [5] 2002-09-05: Deitmar to extract remaining > > questions/issues from > > [6] and sent out in a new email thread > > to be opened > > as a new issue(s). > > > > > > Face to face actions follow: > > > > PENDING 2002-09-09: Sanjiva to redo part 3.2 of his > binding proposal. > > > > PENDING 2002-09-09: Gudge to check whether there is > already an issue > > against Part 2: can you define different > > encodingStyles for different children of > > soap:Body (message parts). > > > > PENDING 2002-09-10: Steve and Gudge to write up the portType > > extensibility > > proposal. > > > > 2002-09-19: Action item reworded. > > > > PENDING 2002-09-10: Sanjiva to produce a proposal for > equivalence of > > (at least) top-level components in the > > next couple > > of weeks. > > > > PENDING 2002-09-10: Gudge; Jeffrey Schlimmer; Roberto et > al to write > > proposal > > to remove message and replace with complexType. > > > > 2002-09-19: Action item wording agreed to. > > > > Roberto stated the goal is to determine > > what it would > > look > > like if we use XML Schema constructs > > instead of message > > constructs. > > > > DONE [7] 2002-09-10: Arthur to kick off thread on @element > vs. @type, > > perhaps by showing how to convert an existing > > @element into @type. > > > > DONE [8] 2002-09-10: Arthur to write up direction and rationale to > > drop @use=encoded and post to wsdl wg > > public list. > > > > PENDING 2002-09-10: Gudge to provide summary of using xml > schema to > > wrap other type systems at an > appropriate level > > of abstraction. > > > > PENDING 2002-09-11: Sanjiva to describe out/out-in for pub-sub. [I > > think this should be pub-sub _without_ > > out/out-in.] > > > > 2002-09019: Form a task force (Joyce, > > Sandeep, Igor, > > Steve T, Sanjiva, Adi, Roberto, Amy) to prepare > > presentation > > about adding pub/sub as a first class > > citizen of WSDL > > 1.2. > > > > Sanjiva will send a note to the list > describing a > > starting > > position and seeking comment. > > > > PENDING 2002-09-11: Jeffrey and Don define TCP binding. > > > > New Actions as of 2002-09-19: > > > > 2002-09-19: Sanjiva will write a Java binding > > > > 2002-09-19: Sanjiva provide updates on Use Scenarios > > document to > > Architecture Group. > > Need to determine whether this activity > > should be in > > the > > architecture group or moved outside. > > > > [5] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0019.html > > [6] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Jul/0016.html > > [7] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0055.html > > [8] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0054.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 4. FTF planning: > > > > Nov F2F: > > > > 2002-09-19: No joint meeting time scheduled with the Architecture > > group at present. Can schedule if needed. Rooms > > available for 3 days of solid meeting. > > > > Meetings will be planned from Monday AM through > > Wednesday PM. > > > > Jan FTF. > > > > 2002-09-19: Sri Lanka or Sydney? About 25 people stated they could > > attend in Sydney. 3 people stated they could > not travel. > > Jonathan will poll working group to ensure that Sydney > > will work. Host Art Hague, not member of working group. > > > > Alternatives if Sri Lanka or Sydney do not work out: > > Vancouver, BC [Dave Orchard] > > Toronto, ON [Arthur Ryman] > > New York, NY [Sanjiva Weerawarana] > > > > Plan would be to meet week of January 14 or 21. > Need firm > > offers by next week (2002-09-19) > > > > Tech plenary March 3-7 in Boston, we could meet 3-4 or 6-7. > > > > 2002-09-19: Do we want a meeting in conjunction with Tech Plenary? > > General consensus is yes, some concern with only 2 days > > of meeting and conflicts with other working groups. > > > > Plan is to go forward with planning WG F2F at > > Tech Plenary. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 5. Arch harvesting of WSDL [9]. Need reviewers. > > > > 2002-09-19: Arch group is attempting to harvest some of our work. > > Who can take a look and see if they are taking > good stuff > > from them. > > > > Jean-Jacques -- document looks reasonable. > > > > Pending: Review next week. Would like input from more > > individuals. > > > > [9] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jul/0349.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 6. Requirements [10] > > Need to finish up and publish again. > > > > 2002-09-19: Table for one week. Need information from Gudge on > > Semantic Web requirement. > > > > Action: Review document for 9/26/02 meeting. > > > > [10] > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/requirements/ > ws-desc-reqs.h > > tml#binddesc > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 7. New Issues > > WSDL and INLINE Schema Definitions [11] > > > > 2002-09-19: Gudge had indicated new issues to be added. > > > > Enumeration of potential issues: > > - Disallow importing of schemas except via > > - No predefined types of elements added to an > > embedded schema > > - Schema embedded in WSDL must have target > > namespace. Cannot > > define > > names in the undeclared namespace. > > > > Follow-up left to the editors. > > > > [11] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0025.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 8. BindingType proposal from Kevin [12]. > > Response from Jacek [13]. > > > > 2002-09-19: Jeffery raised some concerns: > > - new user/novice user will find it hard to understand > > where information should go. Can be addressed > > by adding > > a new attribute > > - data model for binding is inconsistent with > > other models. > > - should we consider this with Sanjiva's proposal? > > - can we break this down into small issues that can be > > considered > > separately? > > > > Jacek -- concerns were summarized well. > > Reusable binding is > > aim. > > This idea is probably 2.0 material and not 1.2. > > > > Roberto -- Clarifying question: The use of term > > binding type > > is confusing. Port and port type have a clear > > relationship. > > This proposal doesn't have a clear mapping. > > Binding & Binding > > type. Kevin agrees that a better name would be useful. > > > > Is the group interested in continuing to pursue > > this action? > > > > Straw Poll says we should continue to pursue. > > Continue: 13 > > Stop: 1 > > Abstain: 11 > > > > Kevin asks that anyone with particular issues or > > concerns let > > him know so he can attempt to address them. > > > > Revisit next week. > > > > [12] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Aug/0009.html > > [13] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0043.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 9. Issue 2: SOAPAction has been deprecated, as of SOAP 1.2 [14]. > > Jean-Jacques proposal at [15]. Jacek's addendum at [16]. > > > > 2002-09-19: Jean-Jacques summary: WG wanted something better then > > SOAPAction. > > Want a more general method in WSDL. Introduce new > > element <http:field> to the HTTP binding. Also, > > introduce an > > equivalent <soap:field> element to the SOAP binding. > > > > Jacek -- proposed name change as well as noted > that some > > transports do not need to have MIME fields, > and most MIME > > fields will not have parameters. Current > proposal leaves > > to much room for inconsistencies. > > > > Glen -- this relates to a proposal on properties > > [24], there > > is a general pattern we should consider. > > > > Jonathan -- group needs to review the property > > stuff in more > > detail. > > > > SOAP Action can turn into a property. > > > > Do we need to make a late comment to the XML > > Protocol group? > > > > ACTION: Glen will look and see status of SOAP > > Actions. Draft > > potential last call comment to XML Protocols Group. > > > > [14] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x2 > > [15] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0050.html > > [16] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0056.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 10. Issue 18: Default for transport of <soap:binding> [17]. > Jeffrey's > > proposal at [18]. > > > > 2002-09-19: This item was closed at 2002-09-05 teleconference: > > Resolution (per 2002-09-05 minutes): > > Issue 18 to be closed per [18] to make > the transport > > attribute > > mandatory for the <soap:binding> element. > > > > Issue 28 still open and may be discussed at > > F2F if time > > permits. > > > > > > [17] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x18 > > [18] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0122.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 11. Issue 28: transport='uri' [19] > > > > 2002-09-19: Defer until after Glen's proposal. > > > > [19] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x28 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 12. HTTP Binding Issues (6a, 41) > > Jeffrey recommends no change [20]. > > Sanjiva is mulling this over [21]. > > > > 2002-09-19: Waiting on Sanjiva -- need to introduce HTTP header > > and / or cookie as part of binding. Differ > > until after > > Glen's proposal. > > > > Should this issue be broadened to say > support of all > > features of the transport. Again, Glen's > > proposal will > > spur this conversation along. > > > > [20] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0102.html > > [21] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0067.html > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 13. Issue 25: Interaction between W3C XML Schema and SOAP > Data Model > > Gudge's explains at [22], Roberto's options at [23]. > > Waiting for more detail in ACM? > > > > 2002-09-19: Waiting for Gudge to provide more detail/wisdom > > on abstract component model. > > > > [22] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0186.html > > [23] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0071.html > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 14. A slice at a proposal for SOAP features/properties in WSDL [24]. > > Glen Daniels > > > > 2002-09-19: Move up on agenda for next week, key to a > lot of the > > binding work. > > > > Read proposal for next week. > > > > [24] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0004.html > > > > Respectfully submitted, > > > > Bill Stumbo > > Xerox Innovation Group > > Solutions & Services Technology Center > > > > wstumbo@crt.xerox.com > > Phone: 585.422.0616 > > Fax: 585.265.8424 > > >
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 02:44:03 UTC