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

Summary: 20-22 Jan 2003 WS Description FTF

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:45:46 -0800
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C0900D6A0@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

  - Agreed that an Abstract MEP describes direction, sequence, and 
    cardinality of messages.  It might also include timing.
  - Agreed that we would not support the creation of MEPs that have 
    more than two node roles.
  - Agreed that we would not expose the role as a separate component
    model property in the portType.
  - Agreed that the set of MEPs allowed in WSDL is open.    
  - Agreed that the variety property should become a URI.
  - Agreed to rename the variety property.  Editors indicated something
    like "message exchange pattern" will be proposed.
  - Agreed to develop the following set of MEPs 
      A1.  IN                       Jeffsch/Gudge
      B2.  IN, (OUT | OFAULT)       Jeffsch/Gudge
      C23. IN, OUT*, OFAULT?        Jeffsch/Gudge
      D1.  OUT                      Jeffsch/Gudge
      E.   OUT, (IN | IFAULT)       Jeffsch/Gudge
      F1.  OUT, IN*, IFAULT?        Jeffsch/Gudge
      F2.  OUT, (IN | IFAULT)(n)*   Don/Amy
  - Agreed to infer an Abstract MEP Framework (possibly owned by Ws
    Arch) from these MEP specs as they mature.    
  - Agreed to close issue-remove-notification-operations (no).
  - Agreed to close issue-remove-solicit-response-operations (no).
  Terminology issues:
  - Agreed that we should not wait until the bitter end for terminology
    changes (esp major ones like portType -> interface), but neither 
    should we take them up immediately.

  Properties and Features:
  - Benefits of adding another extensibility mechanism are still 
    unclear, and many of the proponents were not at the meeting.
    ACTION: 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.

  PortType naming
  - Developed proposal:
    a) Add namespace property to the component model of the 
       operation. Add a namespace property to the binding 
    b) Modify uniqueness constraint to say that combination 
       of name and namespace must be unique within a port 
       type. Equivalence of two operations would be defined 
       based on structure (even though they have QNames) 
       because duplicates are allowed.
    c) Investigate removing namespace attribute from the SOAP 
    d) Add a best practice note to explain why giving two 
       operations (in different port types) the same name and 
       namespace is not best practice.
  - ACTION: Gudge write up this proposal for operation naming by 
    next week.

  Removing Message:
  - While most of the group can live with the status quo, most would
    prefer to remove message.  However, more detail is needed on 
    whether this would complicate the bindings (for instance, 
    requiring a tighter coupling between the WSDL and Schema 
  - ACTION: Umit to send Gudge and Roberto a knarly XML Schema type 
  - ACTION: 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.)
  - ACTION: Issues list maintainer to check that we have an issue 
    regarding being able to specify the verb on a per operation 
  Property/Feature related issues:
  - Postponed.
  Issue 25:
  - Closed as obsolete.

  WS-I BP 1.0:
  - ACTION: Prasad to raise issue of same namespace imports with 
    WS-I BP.

  Requirements comments from David Orchard
  0: ACTION: Jeffrey to rephrase requirements R118, R058, and point out 
     reqs that seem to specify a design and propose rewording.
  1: ACTION: Jeffrey to document as a non-requirement.
  2: Noted the request to document issue resolutions with examples and
     use cases.
  3: ACTION: Jeffrey to add requirement (suitably worded).
  4: ACTION: Jeffrey to add this requirement.
  5: ACTION: Jeffrey to reword req 5 and DaveO to review it
  6: ACTION: Jonathan to add this on our cut list and wait for william.
  7: ACTION: Jeffrey to add this reworded req. (?)
  8: ?
  9: ACTION: Jeffrey to add the reworded requirement "Description 
     language must or should provide for description of optional 
 10: ACTION: Jeffrey to propose wording for requirement related to a 
     portReference construct.

  - Parts 1 and 2 approved for publication as Working Drafts.
  [Joint meeting begins]
  Usage Scenarios
  - Will reappoint Usege Scenarios TF members to revitalize this
  Internationalization of web services (Martin Duerst)
  - Please review
  WS Security WSDL Extensions:
  - Jonathan Will work with CG to say that Wsdesc wg would be 
    interested to get feedback on WSDL 1.2 from people that write 
    wsdl extensions.
  Schedule confirmed:
  - Rennes: May 12-16 (Desc goes first)
  - Toronto: July 28-August 1 (Arch goes first)
  - Consider West Coast in Sept, Sydney in Nov to combine with AC 
    meeting in Japan.
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 14:46:20 UTC

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