- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:18:03 -0800
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Web Service Description Group
Minutes, FTF meeting 3-5 November 2003
Sunnyvale, hosted by Fujitsu.
-------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday 5 November
-------------------------------------------------------
Present:
David Booth W3C
Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems
Glen Daniels Sonic Software
Paul Downey British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet Canon
Tom Jordahl Macromedia
Jacek Kopecky Systinet
Philippe Le Hégaret W3C
Amelia Lewis (phone) TIBCO
Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
Lily Liu webMethods
Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft)
Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle
Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce
Jean-Jacques Moreau (phone) Canon
Bijan Parsia University of Maryland MIND Lab
Arthur Ryman (phone) IBM
Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft
Jerry Thrasher Lexmark
William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
Umit Yalcinalp Oracle
Scribe: Lily
-------------------------------------------------------
09:00 Publication review - motion to publish parts 1 and 2
JeffSch: Looking at the part 2: it seems we've lost some changes in
part 2, may be just the titles.
[Amy is updating the titles in the spec right now.]
Roberto: The schema seems not updated yet
JeffSch: We manually update the schema, but publish it the same time
as the spec.
[The group have reached consensus to publish both part 1 and part 2.]
JeffM: Attributes should be given a higher priority, because it is
so controversial. I think it would be good to get more feedback
on the subject
Marsh: Attributes, inline schema will not be completely done.
-------------------------------------------------------
09:15 Endpoint references
- Proposal from Arthur/Umit [30]
- Awaiting simplified proposal from Roberto/Glen
- Motivation for R131 from DaveO [31]
[30]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Sep/att-0071/ws-ref-present-1.0.zip
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Sep/0181.html
[Roberto: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/att-0345/counterproposal.html]
[Sanjiva: Arthur's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Sep/att-0064/ws-ref-present-0.9.html]
Arthur: Disagrees with Roberto's proposal that puts all interface and
binding information in the XML Schema
Roberto: There are many alternatives to solve this issue and the original
proposal is more powerful than necessary.
[Arthur: From last f2f:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Sep/0187.html.
The presentation from the last f2f:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Sep/att-0064/ws-ref-present-0.9.html]
Roberto: We need to understand the requirements before we judge the solutions
[Arthur: R085 is a brief summary of a long sequence of postings which
clearly define the requirement.]
Arthur: R085 is clearly defined, based on a series of discussion
Amy: Agrees with Arthur that Roberto's proposal brings bindings into
interfaces. That breaks the separation of abstract definition from
bindings.
[Glen: reference = endpoint [binding] [interface]
reference = endpoint binding [interface]
reference = endpoint binding interface
[] = contextual information, not serialized in the reference itself]
Umit: People are making conclusions too early, we should wait until
Roberto finishes his proposal. All proposals have that same aspect.
JeffM: is concerned with the interoperability.
[Umit: Interoperability is achieved by agreeing on the form of the reference]
[Roberto's proposed solution is to introduce the usage of @serviceReference
and service type.]
[Glen doesn't like the @serviceReference, prefers to have a base service type,
and have the wsdl:service and the service marker derive from that base type.]
[Umit: This problem is very similar to marking the schema with a media
type. The solution space is similar to approaches presented by
Phillippe at the last f2f. I think choosing an approach similar to
representing media-types would be beneficial.]
Sanjiva: The document reference has nothing to do with the service reference.
[Arthur: Requiring a complex type wrapper for URI's is inconsist the other
W3C specs, e.g. HTML <a @href="uri"> and XLink. some developers may
want to use attributes for URIs, e.g.
<Department ref="uri">Shipping</Department>]
Sanjava: This breaks the separation rule: types defined by schema, and other
done through wsdl constructs.
Umit: It depends on the type, URL referring to endpoints are treated
differently.
Glen: There may be valid cases to pass XML to the applications.
Jacek: We don't need to differentiate service references at the schema
level, it should be done at the wsdl level.
Sanjiva: Wants to solve the issue to describe a service reference in
interface/operation first
[Umit: A service reference must be designated by a specific type at the
Schema level. The declaration should be in the types/schema.
Roberto: In response to Jacek, the service and service reference type belong
to abstract definition.
[Arthur: see also my example using <wsdl:reference>:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0042.html]
-------------------------------------------------------
10:30 Break
10:50 Endpoint references (cont)
[Marsh: the whiteboard subcommittee is almost done deliberating...]
[Umit: For what it is worth, here is some more discussion on this topic:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0044.html]
Sanjiva: Describing the scenario on a whiteboard:
int bar() { ... }
int foo() {
bar create()
}
Marsh: We need to indicate that "bar" is an interface.
[Arthur: Note: in C# struct is like XSD and interface is like WSDL!]
Umit: "bar" should be of Object type in java world
[Umit: Correction: The example presented here is what I call is the
semi-static case, when you know what bar is=an interface.]
Jacek: We should be debating on where to put this "callable" hint in
wsdl for applications to use.
Glen: In response to JeffM, people want to introduce
bar *foo()--service reference
Jacek: This is not necessary at wsdl level, we can put it in the primer
to tell people how to use schema to handle it
JeffM: We need more than an example in the primer.
DavidB: It can fit into the primer if the case is less strong than what
JeffM prefers. It will need a new type.
JeffSch: A note that the schema as of today does not have a global service
element.
Arthur: We need to keep the abstract definition vs. binding separation.
JeffSch: Can we put this to sleep and move on? It seems like most people
prefer minimum work in the spec.
Sanjiva: We should close the issue.
JeffSch: Somewhere in the spec we will indicate the service reference
usage. We will not introduce a new type.
[Group agree on making top wsdl elements global.]
RESOLVED: Make top WSDL elements global in the schema to facilitate reuse.
Glen: likes a reference type in the spec and doesn't feel comfortable to
make the service ref name required on the wire.
[JeffSch: Per WG decision, made global element declarations for top-level
children of wsdl:definitions.]
Marsh: Current proposal is to add a paragraph in the spec describing
that these references could show up on the wire; and to supply
some examples.
[Marsh: New issue: Should wsdl:service/@name be optional? We don't want
to force users to have to invent a name when service appears on the wire,
but currently we require @name within the context of a wsdl:description.]
[JeffSch: New issue is #95]
RESOLVED: Add a paragraph in teh spec describing that <wsdl:service> can
show up on the wire as a service reference. Primer will have some
examples (see Roberto's counterproposal as a basis).
12:30 Adjourn
-------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 18:17:59 UTC