W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2003

Re: [Revised] Agenda for 9 January 2003 WS Description WG

From: Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 21:28:46 -0500
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF787A930A.6ED3570F-ON85256CA9.000C9F82@us.ibm.com>

Two WSDL WG related issues came up on the OGSi-wg call this afternoon.  I
was wondering if we could insert a late addition to the meeting minutes.

a) WSDL 1.2 draft
As you may recall, the OGSi-WG is committed to a February 15th version 1.0
of the OGSi spec.  We had hoped to pre-req a December WSDL 1.2 draft as
part of this work.  We are very concerned about the pace of the WSDL 1.2
work, particularly as it appears to have slipped out to September 2003.
Can we get a sense of the possibility of the editors revising a January
draft of WSDL 1.2 and a sense of the possible contents of the draft?

Unfortunately, there is a disctinct possibility that the OGSi spec will in
fact pre-req WSDL 1.1 and define a GGF-specific extension of portType (eg
gsdl:portType) to support our open content needs (serviceData) and portType
inheritance.  Although this might be a good short term approach, it may
produce a legacy we in GGF will have to live with after WSDL 1.2 becomes
final.  We had hoped to minimize this potential by pre req'ing a draft WSDL

b) PortType inheritance
There was a serious concern brought up at the WSDL WG f2f in Boston and it
continues to cause concerns in the OGSi wg.  This concern is related to
operation name scoping.  It seemed (to me at least) that the current
proposal essentially asserted that operations would have global name scope.
Consider the following possibility (very pseudo WSDL):

PortType A:
  operation foo (integer)
  operation bar (float)

PortType B:
  operation foo (integer)
  operation bar (string)

PortType C, extends A,B

Now, it seems that portType C is illegal because of operation bar.
operation foo does not cause this illegality because its signature is the

If we have understood the current direction for operation naming, this
seems to be an unnecessary restriction that might force portType designers
to resort to very unique names in their operations, or risk the potential
that their portTypes cannot be mixed in with other portTypes if even one
operation name collides.

One potential solution to this issue may be to revisit the operation
overloading issue that was resolved last summer.  This might be the best
solution, although it is not good to revisit closed issues. Hopefully this
is sufficiently new information to support revisiting a closed issue.

Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
Emerging Technologies

                      "Jonathan Marsh"                                                                                                 
                      <jmarsh@microsoft        To:       <www-ws-desc@w3.org>                                                          
                      .com>                    cc:                                                                                     
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  [Revised] Agenda for 9 January 2003 WS Description WG                         
                      01/08/2003 06:10                                                                                                 

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/2003Jan/0000.html
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/admin


1.  Assign scribe.  Lucky minute taker for this week is:
      Steve Tuecke (fallbacks Sandeep Kumar, Sanjiva Weerawarana,
Roberto Chinnici, Steve Lind, Jeff Mischkinsky, Waqar Sadiq, Igor

2.  Approval of minutes of Dec 12 telcon [.1] and Dec 19 [.2]

[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0002.html

3.  Review of Action items [.1].
?         2002-11-12: Paco will write two options for naming faults:
                      schema vs WSDL.
?         2002-11-12: Roberto will try and come up with another proposal
                      for eliminating message, the discussion goes to
                      email or the next f2f.
?         2002-11-12: Glen and Paco to chase the Global Grid Forum
                      WRT services implementing a single portType.
?         2002-11-21: Don Mullen to detail changes/addition necessary to
                      unify SOAP and WSDL MEPs.
?         2002-11-21: Jonathan to refer R120 text to TAG, referencing
                      TAG issue fragmentinXML-28, when that text
                      appears in the draft.
?         2002-12-05: Glen to write up a description of the issues
                      surrounding property description in WSDL. (This
                      action replaces Glen's previous action item.)
?         2002-12-05: JeffS to see what would be needed to publish
                      his TCP binding on output only as a Note.
PENDING   2002-12-19: Jonathan to find material proposing restricting
                      services to a single portType.
PENDING   2002-12-19: JM to find volunteers for writing MEP's for
                      input/output and output/input
?         2002-12-19: Jacek to write up text on SOAP response MEP after
                      Don send his proposal for requrest/response MEP

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions

4.  Administrivia
  a. Jan FTF: Registration closes Saturday [.1].  reminder, ends at noon
Wed (page needs updating).  Agenda will include:
     - Eliminating message (Roberto)
     - Unifying SOAP and WSDL MEPs (Don)
     - Properties and features (Amy? Glen?)
     - Output operations
     - Others? Attachments? Joint session topics?

  b. Register for March FTF [.2]
  c. Jan 23rd telcon (immediately after FTF) cancelled.

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2003Jan/0002.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2003Jan/0003.html

5. Publication issues
  a. Status of new drafts?

6.  New Issues.  Merged issues list [.1].
  a. Requirements to support attachments [.2].

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Dec/0080.html

7.  Proposal: MEP support in operations [.1].  Sanjiva's <interaction>
concept [.2]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Nov/0085.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Dec/0073.html

8.  Output operations.
      Dependent upon MEPs.

9.  Properties and features.
      Glen's slice [.1].  Amy's revised proposal [.2]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0004.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Nov/0083.html

10. Removing message.  Roberto's proposal at [.1].

Waiting revised proposal from Roberto.  Direction suggested by Dale [.2]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Nov/0035.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Dec/0040.html

11. HTTP Binding Issues (6a, 41)
    Jeffrey recommends no change [.1].
    Sanjiva is mulling this over [.2].
    Dependent upon Glen's feature/property proposal.

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0102.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0067.html

12. BindingType proposal from Kevin [.1].
      Awaiting further work on Part 2 AM.

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Aug/0009.html

13. Issue 28: transport='uri' [.1]
    Dependent upon Glen's feature/property proposal.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x28

14. Issue 2: SOAPAction has been deprecated, as of SOAP 1.2 [.1].
    Jean-Jacques proposal at [.2].
    Jacek's addendum at [.3].
    Dependent upon Glen's feature/property proposal.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x2
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0050.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0056.html

15. Issue 25: Interaction between W3C XML Schema and SOAP Data Model
    Gudge's explains at [.1], Roberto's options at [.2].
    Waiting for more detail in ACM?

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0186.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0071.html

- Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2003 21:33:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:27 UTC