Minutes, 20 Nov 2003 WS Desc WG telcon

Minutes, 20 Nov 2003 WS Desc WG telcon 

0.  Dial in information (members only) [.1]:

See the public WG page [.2] for pointers to current documents and other information, and the private page [.3] for administrative matters.

If you have additions to the agenda, please email them to the WG list before the start of the telcon.

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2003Nov/0017.html
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/admin

 Allen Brookes          Rogue Wave Software
 Glen Daniels           Sonic Software
 Paul Downey            British Telecommunications
 Jacek Kopecky          Systinet
 Amelia Lewis           TIBCO
 Lily Liu               webMethods
 Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce
 Bijan Parsia           University of Maryland MIND Lab
 Adi Sakala             IONA Technologies
 Jeffrey Schlimmer      Microsoft
 Igor Sedukhin          Computer Associates
 Sanjiva Weerawarana    IBM
 Umit Yalcinalp         Oracle
 Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.

 Erik Ackerman          Lexmark
 David Booth            W3C
 Roberto Chinnici       Sun Microsystems
 Youenn Fablet          Canon
 Dietmar Gaertner       Software AG
 Tom Jordahl            Macromedia
 Philippe Le Hégaret    W3C
 Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
 Jonathan Marsh         Chair (Microsoft)
 Ingo Melzer            DaimlerChrysler
 Jean-Jacques Moreau    Canon
 Arthur Ryman           IBM
 Jerry Thrasher         Lexmark
 William Vambenepe      Hewlett-Packard

1.  Chair: TBD as of this writing.  If you don't hear from me, you
    might have to conscript a chair-pro-temp on the fly!  (I will
    credit the chair as if he had taken minutes! :-)

Chair: GlenD

  - Assign scribe.  Lucky minute taker for this week is:
      Sandeep Kumar, (fallbacks: Erik Ackerman, Igor Sedukhin, 
      Steve Lind, Adi Sakala, Allen Brookes, Glen Daniels,
      Jerry Thrasher, David Booth, Amy Lewis)

Scribe: Bijan

2.  Approval of minutes:
  - Nov 13th  telcon [.1].
  - Nov 3-5 FTF [.2, .3, .4] and Summary [.5]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0135.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0059.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0060.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0061.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0062.html

RESOLVED: Nov 13th telecon minutes approved
RESOVLED: F2F minutes approved
(Glen withdraws objection to them. Didn't have time to review. Will produce comments later)

3.  Review of Action items [.1].
PENDING   2003-07-31: Philippe to make a proposal for fixing the 
                      HTTP binding.
PENDING   2003-09-11: Philippe to write a response to Mark Baker
                      proposing a property solution to HTTP verbs 
                      and ask whether this satisfies his request.
PENDING   2003-09-18: Marsh to review the QA operational
PENDING   2003-10-09: Bijan to look into message extensibility 
                      Issues (Appendix E, Jacek's review) wrt RDF data, 
                      and discuss with Jacek.
DONE [.2] 2003-10-16: Amy to provide a use-case for cyclical includes. 
PENDING   2003-10-23: Part2_Editors to clarify wording in 
                      fault-replaces-message rule that a fault is 
                      GENERATED but not necessarily SENT. 
PENDING   2003-11-03: Pauld to work out proposal for a top-level fault 
                      in more detail.
PENDING   2003-11-03: JeffM to propose text to the effect that messages 
                      must conform to their schemas.
PENDING   2003-11-03: Umit (with help of Glen) will write up a proposal 
                      for normative dispatching feature.
PENDING   2003-11-04: Glen to write up rationale for removing headers 
                      (and?) proposal for a generic header-adding
PENDING   2003-11-04: Jacekk to make proposal on combining the get/set 
                      style URIs into one.
PENDING   2003-11-13: Tibco\Amy to draft sample scenarios for MEPs.
DONE      2003-11-13: Jeffsch to start thread re: whether the messageRef

                      AII is optional.
DONE      2003-11-13: Jonathan to identify the issues and invite Mark 
                      Baker to participate in a teleconference.
PENDING   2003-11-13: David to add discussion / example(s) re:
                      @schemaLocation for embedded schemas to the primer.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0131.html

4.  Administrivia
  a. Holiday telcon schedule:
     No telcons: Nov 27, Dec 25, Jan 1
  b. Upcoming FTFs
     - January 26-30, Bedford, MA (Sonic)
       WSArch 26-28(noon)
       WSDesc 28(noon)-30
     - March 1-2 or 4-5, Cannes-Mandelieu, France.

Nothing much to say here.

5.  Task Force Status.
 a. Properties and Features (dormant)
 b. Patterns (dormant)
 c. Attributes (dormant)
 d. QA & Testing
  - Response to comments on QA Spec Guidelines [.2]
  - Implement QA Operational guidelines? [.3]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Sep/0023.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Sep/0074.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2003Sep/0023.html

Nothing much to say here.

6.  New Issues.  Merged issues list [.1].
  - Editorial issues (Yuxiao Zhao) [.2]

jeffsch looked at them and amy responded to about a third of them
jeffsch: adding stuff to the ed todo

  - Marking WSDL operations as "safe" (DaveO/TAG) [.3]

GlenD:    What's safe? Like idempotent?
bijan:    yes
JacekK:   No. Put is idempotent, but not safe. Safe is "no effects you 
          care about" or "no important changes"
umit:     I don't know what unimportant changes mean
JacekK tries to explain
pauld:    doesn't it have to do with caching?
JacekK:   Caching is a benefit of safety
GlenD:    is there a TAG finding describing this?
JacekK:   See http rfc. There should be a forthcoming TAG finding or part 
          of the Arch doc.
PaulD:    http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
GlenD:    but David Orchard hasn't requested an opening of this issue. 
          Do we as a group want to open it?
umit:     as we don't really understand it, we should table it
GlenD:    yes.  Wait upon David's response to jjm's query

  - Circular Includes (Amy) [.4]

alewis:   we've added an import mechanism to WSDL, it's somewhat like and 
          somewhat unlike XML schema's.  Lets you have "standalone"
          interdependant WSDL documents.  (circular includes, that is)
          More like Schema.
GlenD:    Any objections to proposal?
ACTION:   alewis to write up circular includes in specese

[.1] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy
     (Note that [.1] redirects to
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0141.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0104.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0131.html

7.  Schemas in imported WSDL [.1]
    - Seems to be agreement on the existing behavior as described by
    Gudge and Amy.  Still outstanding: do we add note along the lines
    of Glen's suggestion: put text in the spec to the effect that WSDL
    processors SHOULD make schema namespaces embedded in the <types> 
    sections of imported WSDLs available to their schema processors for
    xs:import where possible.

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0109.html

Scribe:   trying to fix action item, missed much of the discussion
alewis:   need to add more language to explain this
umit:     won't this restrict people?
[discussion: optionality issues]
GlenD:    Objection to writing it up in specese
umit:     I'd like to see the text
ACTION: GlenD to write up Schemas in imported WSDL stuff in specese

8.  TAG feedback on WSDL component designators
  - TAG finding [.1]
  - RFC2396bis on fragment identifiers [.2]
  - Jonathan's proposal [.3]
  - Outstanding question: should we recommend that authors place the WSDL
    at the target namespace?  Turns out the TAG is unlikely to ever 
    recommend XHTML/RDDL as a preferred format, based on discussions with
    TAG members at the FTF.  Jonathan recommends accepting 4 and moving on.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/abstractComponentRefs-20031030
[.2] http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html#fragment
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0090.html

JacekK:   Endorses jonathan's propose to put WSDL at the end of a namespace
          If tag changes mind, that's new info.  Asks if that's recommending 
          as in 'w3c recommendation' or as in 'SHOULD' 8-)
jeffsch:  Predict we will have to revisit this issue.
ACTION: editors, add statement in specs recommending WSDL authors make WSDL doc available at the targetNamespace URI

9.  HTTP binding options [.1]
    - option 1: drop HTTP binding
    - option 2: input becomes POST body and output is POST response
    - option 3: option 2 + GET goes to http:address URL and output is 
                GET response
    - option 4: option 3 + rules to move all parameters into query 
                parameters for GET binding with MEP=in-out and @style=rpc
    - option 5: option 4 + URL replacement (not just query params)
    Continue thread from last week.

Deferred until more interested parties are available.
(See below for end-of-telcon discussion on this topic.)

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0048.html

10. Should binding/operation/infault|outfault@messageReference be 
    optional? (Kevin) [.1]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0079.html

jeffsch:  Binding has children so that you can provide specific 
          binding details for corresponding children in interface.
          But there's a point of confusion, i.e., if I have a 
          wsdl:binding...wsdl:inFault..which infault am I talking 
          about?  Use @name.  This resolves the ambiguity.
umit:     I thought this is why we included the name in the first place
jeffsch:  yes
GlenD:    yes
jeffsch:  So if @name is to link up binding to faults in interface, 
          then what is @msgRef on binding/infault doing? So excise it!
GlenD:    yes
jeffsch:  we don't have two of the editors, who might have an informed 
GlenD:    Let's note that jeffsch made a proposal to remove msgRef but 
          we won't move until next telecon.
GlenD:    any objection (here) to jeffsch's proposal?
[there was no objection]
(this isn't binding, but informative to the rest of the group)

11. Ambiguous interface semantics (Mark Baker) [.1]
  - Primer example and ambiguity issue [.2]
  - Awaiting Jonathan's AI to invite Mark Baker.

GlenD:    Mark claims this will dealt with by GlenD's and umit's 
          future proposal, hence this issue is pending.

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/0150.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0147.html

12. Appendix E cleanup [.1]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Sep/0136.html

JacekK:    waiting on Bijan and my action, hence pending

13. Issue 64 [.1] Operations an HTTP verbs (Mark Baker) [.2, .3, .4]
  - Jacek's synthesis [.5].
  - Awaiting description from Philippe showing how properties or
    extensions can be used to annotate the WSDL with RESTful 
    properties.  Ask Mark for a definitive list of those properties 
    so we can consider how to associate them with property URIs or 

GlenD:    Waiting on Phillippe, so still pending
Sanjiva:  wonders whether we already covered item #9 - http binding scope
JacekK & GlenD: This is related to the safe op thing are related
GlenD:    So, they should be put together or merged

[.1] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x64
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0094.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0103.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0111.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jul/0095.html

14. Using RDF in WSDL [.1].
    Dependent upon RDF mapping first draft.

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0076.html



GlenD:     now that sanjiva is here, should we reopen dicussion on HTTP
           binding? Or postpone to list and next telecon
Umit:      postpone on various proposals
Sanjiva:   Would like some feedback
GlenD:     Queasy about the abstract issue of mucking with GEDs in this 
           weird way.
JacekK:    Palo Alto F2F, we agreed that describing everything with xml 
           elements was ok, even with non xml wire format (stems from 
           removal of message).
Sanjiva:   As form language, ok, but if you want to put information in
           arbitrary places (e.g., cookies or headers) then we should 
           attack the general problem
JacekK:    for headers, we defer to features and properties, so worries 
           about sticking "parts" in various parts of the message are F&P,
           but we should handle the simple case.
GlenD: leaving, handing chair duties to bijan, the scribe
[GlenD: Have a great Thanksgiving, all who celebrate it!]
umit:      stuff about options 5 and 3 (to sanjiva). Why don't we give 
           people the choice to send the entire GED or url rewriting 
           by taking child element of GED, etc. (JacekK's proposal) 
           with caveat that you have to be using rpc rules.  Let's 
           them use HTTP binding as they did in the past, but also to 
           use POST with the GED (new version of option 5?).
Sanjiva:   So either you can put all parts in URL or everything in 
           body, but nothing halfway. So 3 and 4 and not 5.
Umit:      yes.
Sanjiva:   so, into query params only?
umit:      yes
Sanjiva:   Don't like 4 over 3 only because of connection to rpc style in
           binding. Only place in binding that we look at style
JacekK:    Don't think so. Binding will say that it conforms to rules, 
           but so? They could be more specific?
umit:      +1
Sanjiva:   Not yet another mechanism for defining patterns for GEDs. This 
           is exactly like RPC + restriction that types are simple
JacekK:    so, you'd like the binding to look at the interface style
Sanjiva:   No. I don't like looking at @style. No forcing binding to look 
           at style. Don't have to do this for SOAP!
JacekK:    But I'm not proposing putting style uri in binding!
sanjiva:   But you want it in the spec that the rules must synch up?
JacekK:    yes
(discussion by JacekK that was hard for scribe to follow)
umit:      RPC rules are just there (not as programming hint, the schema 
           rules), but the time you get to the binding, you have a good 
           idea that the rules are followed and that your schema conforms.
           So what's the problem with refering to the rules from the
           binding?  We can allow people to use rewriting when the style 
           is adhered to and post when otherwise.
jeffsch:   I'm confused, let me try to sort out.  We have a @style on 
           interface, which is just a hint. So do we need a second uri 
           for down in the binding?
umit:      My understanding of JacekK: the rules for the schema are the 
           same, well stronger, than the rpc rules (since you have the 
           simple type constraint)
jeffsch:   i agree and understand that completely.  Do we need an additional 
           uri for this stronger constraint?
JacekK:    We have a choice, don't coin uri and bake it in to the spec, or 
           do coin and have extra styles. I heard sanjiva not like this 
           because of having to peek at style uris from bindings
umit:      I'm in favor of option 3 as baseline, but I endorse choice. So 
           can we give http binding people something familiar.  We need 
           more time to think about it, with phillipe.  Question, I was 
           looking at our schema, and I thought that the name of the 
           service type optional?
jeffsch:   Prolly forgotten.
sanjiva:   did we decide that?
umit:      we did resolve that at the end of the F2F
sanjiva:   that's part of service ref yes?  And we didn't resolve that?
umit:      we did resolve
jeffsch:   we opened a new issue on this, please start a thread on the
[jeffsch: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x95]
umit:      ok
(This is issue 95)
bijan: given no further issues or questions, adjourned

New Action Items:
ACTION: alewis to write up circular includes in specese
ACTION: GlenD to write up Schemas in imported WSDL stuff in specese
ACTION: editors, add statement in specs recommending WSDL authors make WSDL doc available at the targetNamespace URI

Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 14:35:26 UTC