- From: Sandeep Kumar <sandkuma@cisco.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:24:16 -0800
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
WSDWG Telcon Meeting Minutes, Dated: Jan 30, 2003.
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
Dietmar Gaertner Software AG
Martin Gudgin Microsoft
Tom Jordahl Macromedia
Jacek Kopecky Systinet
Sandeep Kumar Cisco Systems
Philippe Le Hégaret W3C
Amelia Lewis TIBCO
Steve Lind AT&T
Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
(irc) Lily Liu webMethods
Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft)
Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle
Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce
Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon
Don Mullen Tibco
Arthur Ryman IBM
Adi Sakala IONA Technologies
Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates
William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
Steven White SeeBeyond
Umit Yalcinalp Oracle
Regrets:
-------
Steve Graham Global Grid Forum
Waqar Sadiq Electronic Data Systems
Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft
Jerry Thrasher Lexmark
Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
Barbara Zengler DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
Scribe: Sandeep Kumar, Cisco Systems
------
Adminstrivia:
-------------
<JM>:
1. Do we approve the last telcon minutes and F2F minutes?
Hearing no comments, the minutes are accepted and approved.
2. March F2F is coming up soon. The Hotel discount runs out this Saturday.
So please register to avail of hefty discount.
<Steve>: There seems be no link to F2F on the web page.
<PH>: Will add that. Thanks for pointing out.
Action Item Review:
-------------------
- Review of Action items [.1].
PENDING 2002-11-21: Jonathan to refer R120 text to TAG, referencing
TAG issue fragmentin XML-28, when that text appears
in the draft.
- REPLACED 2002-12-19: Jacek to write up text on SOAP response MEP after
Don sends his proposal for request/response MEP
-> with 2003-01-30: Jacek to write up text on SOAP response MEP after
Gudge and Jeffrey send their proposal for
request/response MEP.
<JM>: Let me quickly skip over the AIs that are done.
- DONE [.2] 2003-01-09: Editors to have a draft ready a week from tomorrow.
- DONE [.3] 2003-01-09: Gudge and sanjiva to prepare in time for the f2f
a draft of the abstract model for interactions.
- DONE [.4] 2003-01-16: Roberto to provide discussion outline for f2f
- PENDING 2003-01-16: Sanjiva to explain why naming faults is
unnecessary
- RETIRED 2003-01-16: Don to write up input-output MEP
- DONE [.5] 2003-01-16: Amy to write up output-input MEP
- DONE [.6] 2003-01-16: Amy will try to get something out by tomorrow
(Friday) on what the collection of issues are.
- PENDING 2003-01-20: Glen, Amy, Youenn, Sanjiva, JJM to form a TF on
comparing the features/properties and existing
extensibility mechanisms, to illustrate
feature/property rationale, use cases, and examples.
<JM>: See that the Telcon is being organized; Next Thursday at 7AM PST,
right?
-> FTF Thursday 7AM: Invite Arch group
<Don>: Dave O. from WSA wanted to have a cross-group TF. To follow-up with
him.
<JM>: ok with WSA folks joining as well. There is a specific task force
deliverable
he is expecting. But that should not chnage the goal of the task force.
Document the compelling reasons for features that have been obvious.
- DONE [.7] 2003-01-21: Gudge write up this proposal for operation naming
by next week.
- PENDING 2003-01-21: Umit to send Gudge and Roberto a knarly XML
Schema type example.
- PENDING 2003-01-21: Roberto and gudge to create a branch and work up
a binding proposal based on referencing type
systems directly from operation components.
(Umit's example, Sanjiva's example, WSDL 1.1
example, and others.)
<Gudge>: Ongoing work; branch has been created. :)
- REPLACED 2003-01-21: Issues list maintainer to check that we have an
issue regarding being able to specify the verb on
a per operation basis.
-> with 2003-01-30: Gudge to check that we have an
issue regarding being able to specify the verb on
a per operation basis.
<PH>: Gudge to check binding naming, operation naming raised at F2F.
<Gudge>: He checked it.
<JM>: Next F2F may be a good place to discuss.
DONE 2003-01-21: Prasad to raise issue of same namespace imports
with WS-I BP.
DONE [.8] 2003-01-22: Jeffrey to rephrase requirements R118, R058, and
point out reqs that seem to specify a design an
propose rewording.
DONE [.8] 2003-01-22: DO#1: Jeffrey to document as a non-requirement.
DONE [.8] 2003-01-22: DO#3: Jeffrey to add requirement (suitably worded).
DONE [.8] 2003-01-22: DO#4: Jeffrey to add this requirement.
DONE [.8] 2003-01-22: DO#5: Jeffrey to reword req 5 and DaveO to review it
DONE [.8] 2003-01-22: DO#6: Jonathan to add this on our cut list and wait
for william.
DONE [.8] 2003-01-22: DO#7: Jeffrey to add this reworded req. (?)
DONE [.8] 2003-01-22: DO#9: Jeffrey to add the reworded requirement
"Description language must or should provide for
description of optional content."
DONE [.8] 2003-01-22: DO#10: Jeffrey to propose wording for requirement
related to a portReference construct.
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0098.html
[.3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/att-0043/01-inte
raction-patterns-jan-18-2003.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0066.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0035.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0033.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0078.html
[.8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0113.html
<JM>: Usage scenario document activity is to be revitalized.
AI to Sandeep to follow-up with Dave Orchard and people in WSA
and report back whether he can spend cycles on this doc.
--
<JM>: operation naming uniqueness proposal
Gudge sent the doc, unfortunately Steve G. is not in.
changes were relatively minor.
People are having problem accessing the doc.
<Gudge>: reviewed the changes with the group; and it was very very clean
<Gudge> He willl send an HTML version of the operation name proposal
It is exactly the same as the XML version at. It contains the best practice
note.
It has the binding operation component now that has a tns
property to match the corresponding component in the port type.
<TomJ>: seems like what we agreed upon in F2F.
<JM>: shall we roll this in or do we need more time?
<Roberto>: Have you made changes re: ns added to binding level?
<Gudge>: has not made that change but simple
<Arthur>: don't like the idea of having operation names being global. name
conflicts.
<Gudge>: they are not required to be unique in a namespace. might be
ambiguous when you inherit.
<Roberto>: They are the same and no ambiguity, the real name is ns+name so
no ambiguity.
ambiguous only if the operations are identical.
<Arthur>: 2 portTypes within the same namespace, each a foo operation,
I inherit them in an other portType.
<Gudge>: if you inherit, if the names are the same, they have to have the
same properties,
<Arthur>: I see. It is ok, as you have control over the name spacxe;
if you need a name, just create a new ns, otherwise it is an error.
<JM>: It seems a large change, need more time to think.
<TJ>: accept Gudge's change - votes +1
<JM>: Jeff M. do you want to wait?
<Jeff M.>: Never mind if it has been out for a week.
<Gudge>: I can have portTypes A and B with the same operation foo.
<TomJ: how can I make them in a different namespace?
<Gudge>: you need to have a separate WSDL file.
if you want two operations with different targetNamespace, they must be in a
different WSDL.
only one namespace per file. not necessarily one file per namespace.
Gudge: look at sec. 2.5.3.
<JM>: wants to wait until Steve G. & Steve T. also approve it and wait for a
week and
allow people to double check
<JM>: let us approve it next week
---
<JM>: onto MEPs
<Gudge> ACTION: Gudge to produce HTML version of operation name branch
<JM>: we closed solicit-response and output-only. What about closing
the issue on extensible-message-exchange-patterns?
<JM>: guess we decided yes in the f2f, no objection to close it?
RESOLVED: issue-extensible-message-exchange-patterns is closed.
<JM>: Implicit action to Editors; from Part 1 draft; Sanjiva is the master
of Issues list.
<Gudge>: No issues in the Spec anymore
<JM>: Gudge/Sanjiva to close the issue
ACTION: Gudge to mark issue-extensible-message-exchange-patterns as closed.
---
<JM> 7b. Amy's comments on asynchronicity
<Amy>: would characterize it as issue of timing. the point is:
the currently defined SOAP MEP is tied to synchronous protocols,
which is inappropriate for an abstract MEP.
<Amy>: some work is needed then ...
we are working on defining abstract MEPs, SOAP may adopt them and refine(?)
them.
it is important to make sure that we are taking into consideration more than
protocols like HTTP.
<Gudge>: agree with Amy. MEPs for the portType level should be very neutral
with respect to
things async/sync, ...
<JM>: our concerns were directions, orders. do we need to add more
components?
<Amy>: it may imply the reverse. keep them as simple as possible.
possibly not even speaking about properties at that level. or try to
define network paradigms as general properties, that might be difficult.
<JM> 7c. "From the point of view of the service"
how should we try to track 7b and 7c then?
<JM>: any thoughts?
<GD>: Keep in scope the idea that there is a low level concept of WSDL, and
there is multi-protocol
stuff. In WSDL we are dealing with one node; as opposed to multi-node is
more for choreography.
<Amy>: return is for asynchronous callback type mechanisms
<JM> 7d. Youenn's syntax proposal
Sees it as essentially a syntactical change?
<Y>: yes, 3 differents syntaxes. 1 is straightforward from wsdl 1.1. 2
others which to identifiy the MEP and the node.
in the first and third proposals, we have different definitions of the MEPs
even it's still the same at the syntax level.
<JM>: status quo is 1 from the f2f?
<TomJ?: that's what I prefer.
<GD>: to deal with multiple nodes, you'll have to say at some point which
node you're talking about in the MEPs. Either you are talking about from a
given node; or for a node in the MEP. responding this from POV of the
requestor or responder
Each MEP will have a central node.
<Amy>: if you got a service, why do you need to describe it also from the
point of the client?
<Y>: I provided an example in my message
<Gudge>: does not like the idea; was discussed at length at F2F
<Amy>: Unless you want to separte 2 WSDLs.
<DonM> I was thinking the mep was a *unique* identifier for the mep
specification.
<Roberto> But that's viewing a URI as an unstructured string. In reality
URIs have complex structures.
<Philippe> MEPs have complex structures, their naming do not necessarily
need to be complex.
<Roberto> I probably wouldn't, but some MEP author may decide to do that.
<JM>: we are rehashing this ground over and over
will nor accept role as a separte property at the MEP level.
<JM>: Hate to do that but it is already decided.
Glen and Jack are you in favor of this?
<Glen>: Yes. Fine with goiung on with decision at F2F.
<JM>: Part of this is how we write MEP spec. Gudge, Amy, and Jeff are
working on.
Push this until we see that definition and will become clear at that point.
<Y>: He is fine.
<JM>: Can we resolve this part of this discussion - we can take it up in
more concrete
form when we get the spec laid out more concrete.
Must be a compelling story to pursue this further.
Don't want to go-on if we don't have a consensus w/o new info. we will else
go w/ vote.
We didn't get into precise syntax.
Is there a change to component model.
Let us push down the stack. depending upon seeing the spec proposal.
<JM> 7e. reverse of out-(in|fault)* [.5]
<Roberto> So there's already a mechanism to put structured information in a
MEP URI, and we don't need to single out a special attribute for "node".
<Gudge> There is NO SOAP at the port type level
<sanjiva> Glen: I agree, but the same applies to other characteristics of
the binding in use. For example, if the soap request is carried over http
then the http rules must be followed too in addition to the soap processing
rules.
<Gudge> SOAP only exists at the binding level
<Gudge> And the MEPs we are talking about here are at the port type level
<alewis> I have never been able to make sense of discussions of "mirrors".
It's utterly greek to me. Sorry.
<sanjiva> Of course, but Glen was pointing out that if the other end (the
smart dog) sent the request over SOAP then there's other contracts in play
too.
<David B>: In response to Amy. how we want to allow WSDL be used.
where a WS to WS interaction.
<Amy>: The other WS will describe itself for the inverse pattern.
Received on Sunday, 2 February 2003 23:24:47 UTC