- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:21:29 -0800
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Minutes, 16 Dec 2004 WS Description WG telcon
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda
1. Welcome new member: Michael Liddy of Education.au Ltd.
Assign scribe. Lucky minute taker for this week is one of:
Amy Lewis, William Vambenepe, Erik Ackerman,
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Igor Sedukhin, Jeff Mischkinsky,
David Orchard, Asir Vedamuthu, Bijan Parsia,
Sanjiva, Tom Jordahl, Hugo Haas
Scribe: Tom
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Approval of minutes:
- Dec 9 [.1]
[.1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/att-0019/2004-12
-02-minutes.html
Approved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Review of Action items [.1]. Editorial actions [.2].
PENDING 2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going.
PENDING 2004-09-02: Bijan to create stylesheet to generate a
table of components and properties.
PENDING 2004-09-16: Editors to move App C to RDF Mapping spec,
except the frag-id which will move
within media-type reg appendix.
PENDING 2004-09-16: Editors to fix paragraph 6-9 of section
2.1.1 moved into 2.1.2
which talks about the syntax.
PENDING 2004-09-30: Arthur to add Z notation to Part 1.
Discussion with Arthur about Z notation and javascript in a single
document
[pauld: let them eat Z! one version to rule them all..]
Much discussion about how to present the Z notation: inline with
Javascript to hide, 2 documents, etc.
Expectation is to default to Z notation hidden. This would be the
non-normative version.
Normative version would have everything w/ no hiding functionality.
DONE 2004-10-07: Primer editors to use the new
terms "Web service" and "consumer|client".
DONE 2004-10-14: Arthur to prototype a javascript
implementation and decide on the two doc's
vs javascript method later.
PENIDNG 2004-10-14: Editors to add a statement like:
The Style property may constrain both
input and output, however a particular
style may constrain in only one
direction. In Section 2.4.1.1 of Part 1.
(subsumed by LC21 resolution?)
PENDING 2004-10-21: Glen to respond to Tim Ewald re: LC9.
DONE 2004-10-28: Glen to write up the relation between
features and modules for LC18.
PENDING 2004-11-09: DBooth and roberto to describe
option 2 (remove definition of processor
conformance, write up clear guidelines
to developers) (LC5f)
PENDING 2004-11-09: DaveO to work on text for option
3 (redefining conformance in terms
of building the component model)
(LC5f)
PENDING 2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith
proposal using an extension namespace.
(LC54)
DONE 2004-11-10: Part 3 Editors to roll in Asir's changes.
PENDING 2004-11-10: Sanjiva to write the rationale for
rejecting LC75a
PENDING 2004-11-10: Glen will post an e-mail describing
the compromise proposal on formal objections.
DONE 2004-11-10: DBooth will produce text for the spec
re: slide 12 of his presentation.
PENDING 2004-11-10: Editor remove ambiguity if it exists
PENDING 2004-11-10: Sanjiva will write up this proposal
and email it to the list as a response
to the objection.
DONE 2004-11-11: Hugo to update the makefile to
generate the spec with Z
DROPPED 2004-11-11: Arthur to write up a sample of what
a rewritten spec using an infoset-based
component model would look like
PENDING 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the
test suite for the purpose of
interoperability testing.
DONE 2004-11-11: Hugo to ask the XMLP wg to clarify the
issue around the response in the
SOAP/HTTP binding (LC50)
PENDING 2004-11-11: Editors of part 2 and 3 to add text
about WSDLMEP and SOAP mep mapping that
points to section 2.3 of part 3 (LC48b)
PENDING 2004-11-11: Umit to check on operation@style (LC61a)
PENDING 2004-11-18: DBooth to propose text to clarify that
a service must implement everything in
its description.
PENDING 2004-11-18: Mini-task force to propose one or two
proposals for the group for LC5f.
PENDING 2004-12-02: DBooth to draft note clarifying that
(a) optional extension can change the
semantics; and (b) that if semantics are
going to change at runtime, it should be
indicated in the WSDL
DONE [.6] 2004-12-03: DBooth will find message for LC 50
DONE [.4, .5] 2004-12-03: Definition of Node still needed
Booth vs. Sanjiva
PENDING 2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specfic text
for the editors.
PENDING 2004-12-03: Glen to send example on feature stuff for primer
PENDING 2004-12-03: Hugo or JMarsh to write up schema group remarks
DONE 2004-12-03: Kevin will write up issue that remains
DONE 2004-12-03: next week node definition selection!!
DONE [.3] 2004-12-03: schedule MTD issues first telcon in Jan
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Dec/0016.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0070.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0072.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0088.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Administrivia
a. Jan 19-21 Melbourne, Australia hosted by BEA [.1]
Amy: asks if there will be telcon for Australia FTF
[Marsh: ACTION: Follow up on telcon for Australia FTF.]
b. Mar 3,4? Boston
c. Holiday telcon schedule Dec 23rd TF call, Dec 30th cancelled.
d. Jan 6th telcon to be devoted to Media Type Description issues. [.2]
Jan 6th telcon to be devoted to Media Type Description issues
e. Good Standing proposal [.3]
Good Standing proposal - JMarsh may have math wrong, but it was an
example of what *would* happen
Asir: Will the good standing status be visible to members?
JMarsh: Would an Excel spreadsheet be OK?
ACTION: Marsh to publish spreadsheet with Good Standing calculations.
f. Primer Publication [.4]
DBooth: the primer seems ready to publish as a draft
Concern raised that the Last Call of the spec doesn't match the Primer,
which refers to things in the editors draft. In particular the Schema
in the editors draft is more up to date.
Hugo: I believe we should point to the editors draft of the spec.
Discussion on how to indicate to readers which documents to use...
[kliu: ACTION: primer editors to add explanatory text and refer to the
latest editor's copy of the spec]
Arthur: Concerned about the validation of the primer, not willing to
raise an objection to prevent publishing
Arthur: The validation of the WSDL in the primer.
[kliu: ACTION: primer editors to check examples and make sure they are
consistent with the latest wsdl2.0 schema]
Asir: points out a bad link in the primer. DBooth will address
Jmarsh: Any objects to publishing the first draft of the primer?
No objections!
[sanjiva: Thanks to Kevin and David for the hard work on the primer!]
[asir: dbooth, in the informative reference section .. you have a
reference to the primer itself]
[asir: Thanks to David and Kevin, Good Work!]
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Nov/0014.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Dec/0016.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Dec/0009.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0018.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
5. New (non-LC) Issues. Issues list [.1].
- Media Type tbd
[.1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.h
tml
------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Last Call Issues [.1]. Comments list [.2]
- TBD
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/
JMarsh: a few new issues added
------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Issue LC21: Multipart Style and {direction}=out [.1]
- Hugo requests additional guidance [.2]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC21
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Dec/0013.html
Hugo sent Email about another problem with our resolution
Hugo: About the use of out-first patterns with the HTTP binding.
At the time we said this was possible, but it would need
out-of-band info about where to send it. With current
text, out-first is not very useful. Do we even want to
talk about it?
Asir: We don't have to reopen LC21, we could just take care of
implmentation details
Hugo: Options:
1. Keep decision we made, allow out-first MEPs. Means
Request URI is fixed and in WSDL
2. Isn't worth it to have out-first, reverse decision and
not allow it
3. We decide we really want it and work out details on how
to do it.
Hugo: Going to be tough to get interop.
[dbooth: TomJ: Not worth having the out-first HTTP. ]
Tomj: in favor of removing out-first HTTP - save interop grief.
Asir: supports removing it
Sanjiva: opposed to out-first binding unless it's usable - remove it.
[alewis: agree that out-first is inappropriate for http]
[asir: I tracked down this particular decision to item 10 in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Oct/0066.html]
TomJ: Don't want to *prevent* people from designing their own
way of getting out-first ops to work.
Hugo: Users can define their own binding.
Jacek: We talk about this before - it's allowed and anything to
make it work is out of scope
Sanjiva: The spec should just talk about the MEPs that work and not
preclude others.
Glen: Extensibility is the way to go here, if someone puts an
out-first operation in their WSDL, they better put some sort
of indication in the WSDL as to how to get it to work
JMarsh: Removing it completely (option 1): tools would reject the
WSDL unless a (probably mandatory) extension told them
how things work
JMarsh: Reviews the possibilities: remove out-first from HTTP
binding, or leave it in and say you must fill in the
blanks as to how it works
more discussion on how we could get out-first to work
[asir: Oh well, we have spent enough time on this !!]
DBooth: Proposes to change out spec to say that the HTTP binding
supports the in-first MEPs. Other MEPs may be used, but
would require an extension to be used
[asir: +1 to Jonathan's rephrase]
Support for Dave's proposal
[GlenD: Other MEPs may be used, but the semantics of their usage must
be defined in some way, such as with an extension or Feature.]
Talking about wording.
[sanjiva: "if some other meps (such as outbound meps) are in use in
the interface then some extension may be required to
indicate how those work with this binding"]
ACTION: Part 3 Editors to update the HTTP binding with one of the above
versions of text
Call next week will be a Task Force. See you next year!
[bijan: Ta]
Meeting Adjourned
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 22:21:37 UTC