Re: [draft] Agenda: 22-24 Sept 2003 WS Description WG FTF

Hi Steve,

If you can indicate your views on the endpoint references directions
that would be very useful .. same for attributes, but obviously I know
your feeling about the latter quite well.

Thanks,

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Tuecke" <tuecke@mcs.anl.gov>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [draft] Agenda: 22-24 Sept 2003 WS Description WG FTF


>
> I will not be able to arrive until Tuesday late morning.  (There's a
chance
> I may not be able to come at all.  I'm still trying to juggle my
> calender.  But I definitely have an immovable conflict on Monday.)
>
> The two sessions that matter most to me, endpoint references and
> attributes, are both currently scheduled for Monday.  It would be ideal
for
> me if these discussion could be moved back to Tuesday afternoon and
> Wednesday morning. However, if that change would be a problem for others
> who are more critical than myself to these discussions, then obviously
> don't move them.
>
> Thanks,
> -Steve
>
> At 06:58 PM 9/11/2003, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>
> >Logistics [1], dial-in numbers [2] (members only).
> >
> >   [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/3/07/f2fSeptLogistics.html
> >   [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/3/07/f2fSeptLogistics.html#Bridge
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >Monday 22 September
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >09:00 Introductions and logistics
> >     - Assignment of scribes
> >       @@@
> >     - Agenda fine-tuning
> >
> >09:15 Removing message.  New Draft [3], schema [4]
> >     - Countdown to close 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]
> >
> >   [3] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xml
> >   [4] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xsd
> >   [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0004.html
> >   [6] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x27
> >   [7] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x39
> >   [8] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x40
> >   [9] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x45
> >  [10] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x48
> >  [11] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x63
> >
> >9:30 R085 Describing endpoint references.  [12]
> >    - 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 [13], response from Arthur [14].
> >    - Related issue (?) dynamic discovery of a service [15].
> >    - Arthur to work with Umit to unify approaches.
> >
> >  [12]
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Apr/att-0088/R085-20
> >03-04-22.html
> >  [13]
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jun/att-0024/umit_pr
> >oposal.html__charset_ISO-8859-1
> >  [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jun/0142.html
> >  [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0004.html
> >
> >10:30 Break
> >10:50 Endpoint references (cont.)
> >
> >12:00 Lunch
> >13:00 Attributes
> >   - TF revised proposal [16]
> >
> >[16] TBD
> >
> >15:00 Break
> >15:20 Attributes (cont.)
> >
> >17:30 Adjourn
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >Tuesday 23 September
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >09:00 Patterns.  New draft [20]
> >     - Choose specific patterns for the standard [21]:
> >       1. TF recommendation: drop request-response and multicast-
> >          solicit-response patterns, as subsumed by others [22].
> >       2. Sanjiva's proposal: drop any pattern not used in a
> >          normative binding in our spec.
> >       3. Tom's proposal: drop the "multi" patterns.
> >       4. Amy's proposal: at least the patterns in WSDL 1.1.
> >
> >  [20]
> >http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12-patterns.
> >xml
> >  [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0010.html
> >  [22]
> >http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/meps-vs-iops/rec
> >ommendations_clean.htm
> >
> >10:30 Break
> >10:50 Patterns (cont.)
> >
> >11:15 WSDL Validator demo (Arthur)
> >
> >12:00 Lunch
> >13:00 Binding enhancements.  New draft [23, 24]
> >   - Unresolved proposal: Drop <soap:binding>: drop @protocol, change
> >               <soap:address>: add @protocol.
> >
> >   - Issue #80: Inappropriate name for binding component [25].
> >   - Issue #81: Match between binding/@interface and
> >                service/@interface should account for interface
> >                inheritance. [26]
> >   - Issue #82: Relax binding syntax constraints in favor of
> >                semantic constraints [27]
> >   - Issue #83: Specify interaction between binding extensions [28]
> >   - Issue #84: Are SOAP header faults needed? [29]
> >   - Issue #85: HTTP (non-SOAP) binding depends on message/part [30]
> >                Philippe to make proposal.
> >   - Issue #86: Should we define a new binding element for
> >                default rule for wsoap:operation/@soapActionURI.
> >                Proposal = interfaceTNS#operation-name. [31]
> >
> >[23]
> >http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xml#Bindi
> >ng
> >[24]
> >http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xml#Endpo
> >int [25] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x80
> >[26] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x81
> >[27] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x82
> >[28] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x83
> >[29] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x84
> >[30] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x85
> >[31] http://tinyurl.com/mwuy#x86
> >
> >15:00 Break
> >15:20 Binding Enhancements (cont.)
> >
> >17:30 Adjourn
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >Wednesday 23 September
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >09:00 TBD
> >
> >10:30 Break
> >10:50 TBD
> >
> >12:00 Adjourn [32]
> >
> >[32] http://www.cdsusa.com/

Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 11:57:11 UTC