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

I would support moving the endpoint references to tuesday.  I'd be
interested in attending the f2f for that portion if that's allowed.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Steve Tuecke
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 8:04 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> 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-0
> 088/R085-20
> >03-04-22.html
> >  [13]
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jun/att-0
> 024/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/wsdl1
> 2-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/wsdl1
2.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 16:49:54 UTC