- From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:51:11 -0700
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Message-ID: <3F57C1DF.9070107@webmethods.com>
W3C Web Services Description Teleconference 09/04/2003
Minutes of Meeting
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll (To be Corrected)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Present:
Erik Ackerman Lexmark
David Booth W3C
Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems
Glen Daniels Macromedia
Dietmar Gaertner Software AG
Steve Graham Global Grid Forum
Tom Jordahl Macromedia
Philippe Le Hégaret W3C
Amelia Lewis TIBCO
Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
Jacek Kopecky Systinet
Sandeep Kumar Cisco Systems
Steve Lind AT&T
Lily Liu webMethods
Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft)
Ingo Melzer DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle
Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce
Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon
Arthur Ryman IBM
Adi Sakala IONA Technologies
Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates
Jerry Thrasher Lexmark
William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
Regrets:
Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft
Umit Yalcinalp Oracle
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Assign Scribe: Prasad Yendluri
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Approval of minutes:
- July 24 telcon [.1].
- July FTF [.2, .3, .4] and summary [.5]
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jul/0139.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0010.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0011.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0012.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0013.html
No questions or corrections from anyone on either.
[APPROVED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Review of Action items [.1].
? 2003-03-13: Don will write a proposal for annotating schema
with part information.
Don not present. Left PENDING
? 2003-03-27: Philippe write up a proposal for embedding binary
data types in schema
Phillipe will have this ready for next F2F.
ACTION: Jonathan to put this on the F2F Agenda.
? 2003-05-13: DaveO to send a motivating example for R131.
PENDING
DONE [.2] 2003-07-24: David Booth will prepare registration page for
Sept F2F.
DONE [.3] 2003-07-24: David Booth will pose questions to Anne about
URI vs QName.
? 2003-07-30: Amy to generate proposal for fault rules.
DONE
DONE [.4] 2003-07-30: Editors to incorporate the first three Patterns
TF recommendations into the draft.
? 2003-07-31: Philippe to make a proposal for fixing the
HTTP binding.
PENDING
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34650/ws0309/
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jul/0136.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0002.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Administrivia
a. Sept FTF logistics [.1]. Registration [.2] closes Sept 7th!
Draft agenda by next week.
Registration closes in 3 days, not many people have registered yet.
Pls do (one way or other) so that we can get a head count.
b. Joint W3C-OASIS tech plenary (Dec) update.
Discussion on this at CG. Coinciding with the XML 2003 conference in Philadelphia.
JM reluctant to cancel Nov F2F, to get WSDL 1.2 to much close to last call.
Also recommending not to have a full WG meeting at the plenary but chair and perhaps
editor attend to answer Q's and find which other groups have dependency on our work.
Glen: Do we have a plan for Nov F2F.
Tom: SFO, CA hosted by Fujitsu. Nov 3-5.
c. January FTF. Offer to host in Sri Lanka (Arch unlikely). Other
offers?
Arch group opposed to Sri Lanka but, if we don't have any other offers we will
need to go with Sri Lanka. AR: Toronto still open. Glen: Bedford, MA an option.
d. March FTF. Technical Plenary March 1-5, Cannes-Mandelieu, France.
WSD F2F either 1-2 or 4-5 March.
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/3/07/f2fSeptLogistics.html
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34650/ws0309/
------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Task Force Status.
a. Properties and Features (dormant)
b. Patterns
c. Attributes
d. QA & Testing: Web Services Validation Tools Open Source Project
[.1]
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0016.html
AR announced Web services validation tools open source project
and soliciting volunteers.
AR: Would it be appropriate to do a demo at the F2F?
Yes.
ACTION: Jonathan to put this on the Agenda.
AR: Did we put a link to the WSDL validator on the W3C page?
DB: If you send me the details, I will.
AR: It is on the agenda.
ACTION: David Booth to put the link to WSDL validator on the same place
where other tools are listed.
The Attributes task force is about to reconvene will have a proposal /
presentation for the Sept F2F.
------------------------------------------------------------------
6. New Issues. Merged issues list [.1].
- 77, 78: patterns issues raised by editors [.2].
- WSDL Versioning, R075, R119 [.3]
[.1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0002.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0014.html
JM: As a note, JeffreyS added 77,78 they run into while editing the patterns document.
Question on the list reg WSDL versioning, i.e. what to do with requirement R075, R119.
Should we have an explicit issue to review our versioning strategy? Can people just version
things to their satisfaction by managing namespaces appropriately?
SW: It would be useful to add some version capability into the language itself.
When you define an interface you can assign a version number and not have to change
the namespace.
JM: Is this something like a version attribute?
SW: yes, but .. (XSLT)?
AR: Some other spec. in W3C is working on this? Source code mgmt vendor are doing this?
Some sort of chg mgmt spec.
JM: For now we will track this as an issue. If anyone has proposals feel free to send.
------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Attributes
- TF recommendations [.1]
- Forward steps?
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Sep/0002.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
8. R085 Describing endpoint references. [.1]
- General agreement to add such capability to WSDL, but
not agreement on the precise form of the annotations and
where in the WSDL they should reside. Proposal
from Umit [.3], response from Arthur [.4].
- Related issue (?) dynamic discovery of a service [.2].
- Forward steps?
[.1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Apr/att-0088/R085-20
03-04-22.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0004.html
[.3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jun/att-0024/umit_pr
oposal.html__charset_ISO-8859-1
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jun/0142.html
Umit out this week and next. Discussed at last F2F but, still work to be
done, describing differences between AR's minimal approach and Umit's
composite dynamic discovery approach. Umit sees more than just endpoint
URI as significant piece of info in a reference. Is there a potential
to reconcile both approaches and summarize the differences before the
F2F?
AR: Will talk with Umit off-line to come up with a unified approach.
I was proposing XPATH as the way to identify the endpoint but, I am
can go with a schema type to tag where the URI is or it could be a
complex type. There is not much conflict between the approaches.
We can unify the approaches.
JM: I will put this on the F2F Agenda. We will not track this b4 that.
------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Patterns. New draft [.1]
- Issue 77: Is the "name" the correct [local name] for
interface/operation/input/@name? [.2]
- Issue 78: Should we define an implied name if there is only
one /input? [.3]
- Awaiting fault generation rule update from Amy.
- Choose specific patterns for the standard [.4]:
1. TF recommendation: drop request-response and multicast-
solicit-response patterns, as subsumed by others [.5].
2. Sanjiva's proposal: drop any pattern not used in a
normative binding in our spec.
3. Tom's proposal: drop the "multi" patterns.
[.1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12-patterns.xml
[.2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.xml#x77
[.3]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.xml#x78
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0010.html
[.5]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/meps-vs-iops/recommendations_clean.htm
77, 78 were raised by Sanjiva at F2F.
77: Description: The semantics of other AIIs with [local name] =
'name' does not match the semantics of interface/input/@name
and interface/output/@name. The latter is used to correlate
messages with the interface/@pattern and does not allow the
author of the wsdl:interface to coin a name (as other AIIs
with the same [local name] do).
Amy: WSDL internal identification IIRC. I believe the issue is that the name
in the input/output sense shows up on the wire.
SW: No. In all other usages the attribute 'name' is used to give a name to a
component (e.g. operation, interface or binding). Where as in
interface/input/@name and interface/output/@name the @name is used to identify
the pattern. This is inconsistent.
Amy: Someone suggested the term "role". Potential conflict with the "role"
in SOAP 1.2 however.
SW: I proposed role. I think role is the right one, as it identifies what
function / role a message plays in a message exchange (pattern).
Amy: I am tempted to something like "reference"
Glen: Role is used to identify a role of a particular node in a MEP. Use
of "role" to identify a message in a MEP is wrong.
[Long discussion on what the appropriate replacement name for the @name would be]
Other suggestions MessageName, MessageType, MessageRole etc..
ACTION: Amy to propose a list of suggested replacement names on the list,
for a straw-poll next week.
78: Description: If a pattern specifies only one input (or output)
message, the @name AII is not needed to resolve which
interface/input (or interface/output) matches the messages
named in the pattern.
[Long discussion again..]
Resolution: Make the @ formerly known as "name" optional. We will also
state in the specification that this attribute is required to disambiguate
two or more messages that flow in the same direction in a pattern.
Issue 78 closed.
Choosing specific patterns to including the spec and which one to leave
for extensibility.
Amy: Sanjiva has one proposed criteria. Anything does not show up in part 3
should not show up in par 3. Others?
JM: There was objections to Sanjiva's proposal before. Do people still
object to that approach?
SW: We have discussed this further and we agreed that we document the
patterns we use. Previously we did not have a way to define new patterns
w/o being completely in extensibility mode. We now have an architected
way of doing it.
Amy: WSDL 1.2 has to include at the patterns that were mentioned in WSDL 1.1.
JM: If anyone has objections to any of the three approaches listed in the agenda
for this item (see above), let us know as early as possible, so that we can
explore why that objection exists. If we adopt all three approaches, it is going
to leave us with just two patterns.
JM: I have not seen anyone object to dropping 1
Amy: We will have objections to this (multi-cast?).
JM: To close this item, we will have time in our F2F agenda, an item to
choose which patterns we want to go out with in the final spec. Any
positions, statements or rationales for accepting or rejecting any of
these pattern-choosing methodologies or coming up with other
methodoligies would be great.
JM: I have not gone through the entire issues list to see if there are
other open issues on patterns spec. But we are in pretty good shape with
the spec.
SW: We need a lot more work on the document. We have shared understanding in
the group but, the document needs a bit more work to explain the vision.
JM: There may be a lot of information in the report from patterns task force that
David was editing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Removing message. New Draft [.1], schema [.2]
- Changes to Appendix C (Arthur) [.3]
- Review of Appendix E (Jacek?) [.4]
- Editors have closed issue-eliminate-message, 33, 6c, 12, 74 [.5].
- Editors recommend closure of the following issues [.5].
* Issue 27: Remove 'style' attribute [.6]
* Issue 39: Binding extensions depend on structure of portType
[.7]
* Issue 40: Binding extensions for SOAP interact in a complex
way [.8]
* Issue 45: fault/@use should be optional [.9]
* Issue 48: soap:body/@use should be optional [.10]
* Issue 63: soap binding violates separation of abstract and
concrete [.11]
[.1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xml
[.2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xsd
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0008.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0017.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0004.html
[.6]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.xml#x27
[.7]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.xml#x39
[.8]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.xml#x40
[.9]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.xml#x45
[.10]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.xml#x48
[.11]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.xml#x63
AR: Changes to Appendix C: I reviewed the change Jeffrey made and I found
another reference in the document as well. All that is cleaned up now.
JM: Appendix E: Can Jacek as proponent of alternate schema languages take
an action to review?
Jacek: Yes, I will review that from that angle.
ACTION: Jacek to review Appendix E.
JM: Editors have closed issues 33, 6c, 12, 74. If anyone has objections let us know.
Editors recommend closure of the issues 27,39,40,45, 48 and 65.
Anybody has objections to closing them or plan to take a closer look at them?
JeffM: We will want more time to review these.
JM: We will wait for another 2 weeks. At the F2F we will ask for objections
to closing these.
JeffM: OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Binding enhancements. New draft [.1, .2]
- Change @name from NCName to QName - not implemented?
- Issue #2 addendum: Should we define a new binding element for
default rule for wsoap:operation/@soapActionURI.
Proposal = interfaceTNS#operation-name. Need
a separate issue number?
- Unresolved proposal: Drop <soap:binding>: drop @protocol, change
<soap:address>: add @protocol. Need to turn into an
issue?
- Issue #80: Inappropriate name for binding component [.3].
- Issue #81: Match between binding/@interface and
service/@interface should account for interface
inheritance. [.4]
- Issue #82: Relax binding syntax constraints in favor of
semantic constraints [.5]
- Issue #83: Specify interaction between binding extensions [.6]
- Issue #84: Are SOAP header faults needed? [.7]
- Issue #85: HTTP (non-SOAP) binding depends on message/part [.8]
Philippe to make proposal.
[.1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xml#Binding
[.2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xml#Endpoint
[.3]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x80
[.4]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x81
[.5]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x82
[.6]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x83
[.7]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x84
[.8]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x85
JM: JeffS has indicated the @name was changed from NCName to QName as a
resolution from f2f. - not implemented?
SW: When you refer to an operation from a binding you now have to refer
to the QName, the namespace of the interface, in which the operation is
defined, as well as the operation.
JM: So we have to change the spec to make that @ and associated property
a QName and also change schema to allow QName instead of NCName.
SW: Right.
JM: I will just leave on the agenda instead of giving an action.
Should we define a new binding element for @soapActionURI.
Need a separate issue number. Any objection to creating a new issue?
ACTION: Editors to add this a separate issue.
Unresolved proposal: Moving @protocol from <soap:binding> to <soap:address>
How to track this? Turn into an issue or tackle at F2F?
SW: At the F2F, then we would have updated the SOAP binding to where we are
now and it would be easier to see how this helps or not.
Amy: I agree. I like to see us get consistent with some of the significant
changes we put through at the last F2F.
JM: We will defer this and put on the agenda fro the F2F rather than having
it as a separate issue on our issues list.
Issues 80-85: If anyone is interested, make proposals on the mailing list
SW: Again it is better to wait on these until we update the spec.
JM: I am happy to put the binding enhancement stuff on the back burner,
we have other items on the agenda we can tackle in the next few telcons
prior to F2F. Ok I will reverse the agenda and put some of the other items
we have not gotten to on the agenda for next call.
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jul/0008.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jul/0107.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jul/0145.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jul/0148.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Call.
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 18:52:32 UTC