- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:35:13 -0800
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Attendence:
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.
Regrets:
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
guidelines.
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
property/feature.
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
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html)
[.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
opinion.
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
namespaces.
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
Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
attribute?
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
issue.
[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