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

Minutes of 5 June 2003 WS Desc telcon

From: Sedukhin, Igor S <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 21:27:03 -0400
Message-ID: <87527035FDD42A428221FA578D4A9A5B033F2DD6@usilms24.ca.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, 5 June 2003


 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
 Jacek Kopecky          Systinet
 Sandeep Kumar          Cisco Systems
 Philippe Le Hégaret    W3C
 Amelia Lewis           TIBCO
 Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
 Jonathan Marsh         Chair (Microsoft)
 Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce
 Jean-Jacques Moreau    Canon
 Bijan Parsia           University of Maryland MIND Lab
 Arthur Ryman           IBM
 Adi Sakala             IONA Technologies
 Jeffrey Schlimmer      Microsoft
 Igor Sedukhin          Computer Associates
 William Vambenepe      Hewlett-Packard
 Umit Yalcinalp         Oracle
 Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.

 Alan Davies            SeeBeyond
 Steve Graham           Global Grid Forum
 Martin Gudgin          Microsoft
 Tom Jordahl            Macromedia
 Steve Lind             AT&T
 Lily Liu               webMethods
 Jerry Thrasher         Lexmark
 Sanjiva Weerawarana    IBM


1.  Assign scribe.  

	Scribe: Igor Sedukhin

2.  Approval of minutes:
  - May 29 telcon [.1]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0106.html


3.  Review of Action items [.1].

PENDING   2003-03-13: Don will write a proposal for annotating schema with part information.

PENDING   2003-03-27: Philippe write up a proposal for embedding binary data types in schema

DONE      2003-05-12: Jonathan to work on auto generating pseudo-syntax from schema.

DONE [.4] 2003-05-13: Umit to write up a variant of the endpoint description proposal using schema annotation syntax.

JM PING   2003-05-13: DaveO to send a motivating example for R131.

PENDING   2003-05-13: Jeffsch, Sanjiva, Glen, Umit, JJM to come up with a proposal to get rid with the message construct, and add programming hints.

<scribe> jeffsch: proposal for getting rid of the msg is on the table. the pending work is only to outline programming concerns with that

PENDING   2003-05-14: Kevin to contact Sanjiva and try to merge proposals.

RETIRED [.2] 2003-05-22: Jacek to see how test assertions could be expressed in RDF (and OWL in particular).

<scribe> ...discussion on embedding testable assertions in the XML spec of WSDL...
<scribe> ACTION: JM to see what language for testable assertions should be used by the editors.
<scribe> ACTION: Jeffsch to show how testable asssertions would look like.
* JacekK thinks RDF will not be usable easily for testable assertions in the spec or in WSDL schemas

DONE [.3] 2003-05-29: Jonathan to tell XMLP that the SOAPBuilders proposal looks fine.  Additional SOAP 1.2 features will be addressed in WSDL 1.2.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jun/0003.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2003May/0090.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jun/0005.html 

4.  Administrivia
  a. Welcome new member: Bijan Parsia, MIND lab
  b. July FTF [.1], RSVP for Wed dinner [.2].

<scribe> ...WG inclined to move the F2F out of Toronto. Raleigh is the likely F2F place...
<dbooth> Our minutes should note that no one objected to moving the F2F to Raleigh.
<scribe> no one objected to moving F2F to Raleigh :)

  c. Vote to publish new parts 1, 2, and 3. [.3, .4, .5]

<scribe> JM: vote to publish parts 1,2,3
<scribe> JM: major new work was on HTTP binding
<scribe> no objection from WG to publish
<scribe> ACTION: editors to publish 1,2,3
<scribe> jeffsch: primer has to be synched up with the spec and published as well
<scribe> dbooth: it's been hard to keep up with the spec so far
<scribe> JM: there are other outstanding structural items: Grid attributes TF, etc.
<scribe> JM: up to the editors if they could do it...

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/3/05/f2fJulyLogistics.htm
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2003May/0049.html
[.3] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.html
[.4] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12-patterns.
[.5] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12-bindings.

5.  Task Force Status.
 a. Properties and Features

<scribe> JM; what's the mission?
<scribe> glen: roll the discussions into the WG and leave the other part to WSA WG.
<scribe> JM: TF is dormant then...
<scribe> glen: yes

 b. Patterns

<scribe> dbooth: refined the notation and terminology

 c. Attributes [.1]

<scribe> requirements, deliverables were discussed
<scribe> joint TF between OGSI and WSD WG
<scribe> JM: more participation from other groups is via the public maillist
<scribe> JM: the objective of the TF is to prepare to sell the attributes/state to the WSD WG

 d. QA & Testing

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2003May/0030.html

6.  New Issues.  Merged issues list [.1].
  - <documentation> not attribute-extensible [.2] (Jonathan)

[.1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html 
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0092.html

7.  Using RDF in WSDL [.1].

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

<scribe> jacek: embed RDF statements using WSDL extensibility. other way to take semantics 
  info and use current RDF elements and add semantics section to WSDL (like types section)
<scribe> JM: new section is the slippery slope as it opens it to add sections for QoS, etc.
<scribe> jacek: yes, that is why extensibility way is preferred
<scribe> arthur: is RDF annotation or a separate doc?
<scribe> dbooth: both are legitimate
<JacekK> philippe, could you point me to the short syntax please?
<scribe> arthur: if we embed raw RDF in WSDL then current processors will do the job, if we 
  invent something it will be bad
<scribe> jaceck: new element is only the context for RDF statements
<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0076.html
<Philippe> jacekK: it is called Basic Abbreviated Syntax: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#basic
<scribe> bijan described a scary way of embedding RDF in comments
<scribe> bijan: tools usially look for rdf:RDF
<Philippe> or rdf:Description
<scribe> arthur: it is reasonable to have an extra element
<scribe> jeffsch: it is a fairly high bar to add a new first class element
<scribe> jacek: the element is an extensibility element, we merely invented it here for RDF 
* bijan notes that he doesn't understand extensibilty/substitution groups stuff yet
<scribe> JM: just simply fix the WSDL schema to allow RDF elements where appropriate
<Marsh> not precisely my point - User will simply write a bit of schema glue to put RDF 
  elements in the right substitution groups.
<scribe> jeffsch: suggestion to write a simple glue to follow JM's proposal, and if that 
  cannot be done, then we need to revisit the substitution group thing
<JacekK> wsdl:rdfDescription is an extension, as much as soap:binding
<scribe> jeffsch: concern is that it need to be normative, and the lement has to define the 
  right semantics to match RDF. That means RDF changes, WSDl is broken now.
<scribe> JM: believes that RDF can be simply put in one of the substitution groups and that 
  is it
<scribe> jacek: it means we have to redifine somebody's element (semantics of that 
<scribe> jacek: the element has to be designed to extend the WSDL. Its semantics sould be 
  that way. For example xs:schema element is like that rigth now.
<bijan> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVG11-20030114/metadata.html
<scribe> jacek: if we provide URIs for all of our components than RDF statements can be 
  easily written in an external document, but ity may not be very useable
<bijan> That's how SVG embeds RDF.
* jeffsch wonders if Bijan has a pointer to where RDF is embedded in Adobe's format(s)
<scribe> JM: if a DSIG had to be embedde in WSDL it works fine. There is no need of 
  wsdl:siganrures or like that
<bijan> http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp/main.html
<bijan> Adobe Extensible Metadata Platform (XMP), how they embed RDF (and other things, i 
<scribe> jacek: wdl:rdfDescription is just for the context, still believes that
* jeffsch wonders if Bijan could do one more... example of a license in RDF in an XML 
<scribe> JM: underlying issue is if the substgrp mechanism is good and why not...
<scribe> ACTION: JM to see what is the problem with substgrps.
<JacekK> bijan, in the SVG way (<metadata>) do the RDF statements know their context?
<scribe> JM: there is more support to the extensibility element rather than new section
<scribe> jeffsch: push back on both of those, much prefer to see if it can be done by the 
  existing extensibilty mechanism
<scribe> jacek: the current proposal is to use existing ext. 
<scribe> jeffsch: concerned that we would be defining the new element (even for 
<bijan> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/01/15/creative.html
<bijan> ARticle about creative commons embeding rdf in comments
<scribe> arthur: is it parallel with properties/features. the intention is just annotation 
  of the doc
<scribe> JM: seems like
<bijan> And one more: http://infomesh.net/2002/rdfinhtml/ all about rdf in HTML
<scribe> jacek: using RDF is similar to using P&F?
<scribe> arthur: yes
<scribe> JM: unification?...
<bijan> http://creativecommons.org/learn/technology/usingmarkup
<scribe> arthur: may be we can convery any property to an RDF statement. Define the rule to 
  do so.
<bijan> Actual cc page saying "put the RDF in an xml/html comment"
<scribe> jacek: yes, P&F can use RDF mechanisms, but not vice versa
<scribe> JM: we need o start working on the WSDL doc to RDF mapping

8.  Proposal: rationalization of faults in patterns [.1].

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0085.html

<scribe> JM: any reason not to adopt Amy's proposal?
<scribe> dbooth: strongly in favour
<scribe> jacek: are the rules visible in the WSDL doc?
<scribe> amy: no
<scribe> umit: why limit the patterns in any way?
<JacekK> what value does factoring fault rules out give us?
<scribe> JM: it is just an additional way to understand the patterns
<JacekK> does it simplify the text of the spec?
<scribe> JM: vendor's extension MEPs must follow the rules that we described
<scribe> JM: dbooth to drive the simplification

Received on Monday, 9 June 2003 21:27:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:30 UTC