W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

Minutes, 12 Feb 2004 WS Description telcon

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:35:40 -0800
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA20297D7A6@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

WSDL WG Telcon
12 February 2004

 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           TIBCO
 Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
 Jonathan Marsh         Chair (Microsoft)
 Jeff Mischkinsky       Oracle
 Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce
 David Orchard          BEA Systems
 Bijan Parsia           University of Maryland MIND Lab
 Arthur Ryman           IBM
 William Vambenepe      Hewlett-Packard
 Asir Vedamathu         webMethods, Inc.
 Sanjiva Weerawarana    IBM
 Umit Yalcinalp         Oracle
 Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.

 Ingo Melzer            DaimlerChrysler
 Erik Ackerman          Lexmark
 Ingo Melzer            DaimlerChrysler
 Jean-Jacques Moreau    Canon
 Jeffrey Schlimmer      Microsoft


1.  Assign scribe.  Lucky minute taker for this week is:
      Igor Sedukhin (fallbacks: Jeffrey Schlimmer, Prasad Yendluri, 
      Dietmar Gaertner, Umit Yalcinalp, Jean-Jacques Moreau, 
      Sanjiva Weerawarana, Youenn Fablet, Youenn Fablet, David Orchard)

Scribe(s): Prasad and Sanjeva

<dbooth2> Philippe: I'm trying to have the WSDL charter this week, and include the SOAP 1.1 binding with http put and delete (but not required).
<dbooth2> ... Also, I'll be stepping down as team contact and Hugo Haas will replace me.  I'll still be at the Tech Plenary though.
<dbooth2> JMarsh: Thanks for all the work you've done.
<dbooth2> Philippe: The change will become effective when the charter is effective.
<dbooth2> dbooth: I'll be continuing as alternate team contact.

2.  Approval of minutes:
  - Jan 22nd telcon ?
  - Jan 28-30 FTF [.2, .3, .4] and Summary [.5]
  - Feb 5th telcon [.6]

[.1] ?
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0010.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0012.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0011.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0013.html

Umit: I did not have a chance to review the F2F minutes.
JM: What about last week's telcon minutes.
Umit: Did not review those as well
JM: Ok. We will carry minutes approval to next week.

3.  Review of Action items [.1].
PENDING   2003-09-18: Marsh to review the QA operational
DONE [.2] 2003-11-04: Glen to write up rationale for removing headers 
                      (and?) proposal for a generic header-adding
PENDING   2004-01-08: Pauld to write up examples of schemas for the
PENDING   2004-01-28: Philippe and JMarsh will look at the ipr for 
                      test suite.
PENDING   2004-01-28: Sanjiva to consistify the @name attributes.
PENDING   2004-01-29: David Booth to suggest improvements to the 
                      spec clarifying "WSDL processor".
PENDING   2004-01-30: DaveO to write up a proposal for augmenting 
                      schema information to enable versioned data.
PENDING   2004-01-30: DavidO to write request to schema group to 
                      address the issue of schema not supporting 
                      ignoring extended content.
DONE [.3] 2004-01-30: Tom to write proposal on version attribute 
                      (modeled after schema's).
PENDING   2004-01-30: Umit to write a proposal on @wsdlLocation
PENDING   2004-01-30: Jonathan to investigate typo in last f2f 
                      meeting on _S_erviceType.
DONE [.4] 2004-01-30: Issues list editor to retitle Issues 113 and 
PENDING   2004-01-30: Philippe to draft a note for the group around 
                      safe operations.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0053.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0049.html
[.4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html

4.  Administrivia
  a. Upcoming FTFs
     - March 4-5, Cannes-Mandelieu, France [.1]
       Joint session with the TAG, XMLP?

JM: Any questions? I will add an agenda item for call the wk before F2F
    reg review of the Arch doc and any comments/issues to be brought up 
    with TAG
Amy: Telcon facility available (at the tech plenary?)?
Philippe: I believe so. I need to check
JM: Anyone wants to dial in, post to admin list that you want to register for that. 
    We will schedule a call based on how many people and at what times.

ACTION: Philippe to check on teleconference facilities for Tech Plenary f2f
[See later in these minutes for results of this action item.]

 b. Web Architecture Document [.2, .3] review:
       Volunteers so far: Jacek, Bijan, Jonathan

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2003/08/allgroupoverview.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Dec/0029.html
[.3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/

5.  Task Force Status.
 a. Properties and Features (dormant)
 b. Patterns (dormant)
 c. Attributes (dormant)
 d. Media type description (dormant)
 e. QA & Testing
  - Response to comments on QA Spec Guidelines [.2]
  - Implement QA Operational guidelines? [.3]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0000.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Sep/0074.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2003Sep/0023.html


6.  New Issues.  Issues list [.1].
  - Issues 137, 138 already added (see below)

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html 
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0137.html 
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0022.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0034.html

Note that I am not treating the following thread as an issue yet:
  - Reuse faults by ref (Daveo) [.5]
I'm waiting for confirmation from DaveO that this is not obsoleted by
FTF decisions.

 [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0140.html

JM: I did not add a couple of new ones but, 137 and 138 are already added to the issues list. Skipping down to issues list.

7.  Ratifying renaming decisions from FTF.
  FTF produced proposals with general acclaim to rename the following
  - Issue 118: s/@message/@element/ [.2]
  - Issue 119: s/@messageReference/@label/ [.3]
  - Issue 116: s/A,B/IN,OUT/ (already closed?) [.4]

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0011.html
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x118
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x119
[.4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x116

Topic: Issue 118
Rename message @ to element
JM: Bijan as part of his new issue suggested we need to change the name 
    of the message component. We can keep component and @ name together.
Bijan: Message component in one section says it can take values from arbitrary
    type system and in another part says it can only take element decl. 
JM: Sounds like a bug. It should say element declarations from any type system.
JM: Lets take renaming message @ to element 
Tom: I am in favor of changing the att name to element.
Arhur: What is the type? Is this going to be a QName? I prefer message as it 
conveys more semantic information and we should just say its a QName.
Tom: Its already a QName
Umit: I agree with Tom and we should change it to element
Glen: Message conveys wrong semantics as it is part of a message in SOAP world becomes body.
DaveO: Element does not get us anywhere better
Glen: Element says we are referring to a schema element
Tom: Fits with WSDL 1.1 type vs element issue. Says we picked element in WSDL 2.0
JM: Anyone object to renaming? Arthur?
Arthur: Not a big deal. What is in a name?
DaveO: I won't object but, I express my reservations.
JM: We discussed this a lot at f2f. Last call to objections.
No objections. Issue resolved.

RESOLUTION: Issue 118 closed, accept proposal to rename attribute.

Philippe: Telcon update. We do not have telcon at the tech plenary except on Wed.
          For any WG.
Amy: Who else needs telcon facility?
JM: All that want a telcon facility send a note to admin list 

Topic: Issue 119

Rename @ messageReference to label

Bijan: I was mistaken. It was supposed to a reference to a placeholder message
Glen: It is an abstract message ref holder
Bijan: Just pointing out my original rationale was wrong
JM: Any concerns w/ renaming @ messageReference to label ?

RESOLUTION: issue 119 closed, renaming of attribute and associated editorial cleanup approved.

Topic Issue 116

Renaming message labels in the patters from A and B to IN and OUT
JM: From issues list and f2f minutes it seems we resolved we would rename as above
Amy: I already made these changes, as I was under the impression this was resolved 
as editorial at the f2f.
Roberto: I like A and B better, A B and C imply the message order. 
I don't remember the discussion at f2f
Tom: For patterns beyond simple in and out patterns I expect the in and out to have numbers 
at the end of them if there are multiple ins and outs
Roberto: What about the order between Ins and Outs?
Glen: Implied ordering with As and Bs does not scale well
DBooth: If we reopen the issue, we could name them In-1 Out-2 etc.
Tom: Only if we re-open?
Dbooth: Yes. We are not reopening we can leave the current INs and OUTs
JM: Can we leave it closed and move on?
Amy: In part II there is a component called messageRef. Should that also be changed to label?
     It provides further consistency. Any objections to doing that?
No objections. Editorial change.

ACTION: editors to update messageReference -> label in part 2 as well

Issue 116 closed 

8.  Issue 137: Properties should not be limited to simple types [.1, .2]

  - Proposed resolution: Change the xs:anySimpleType in section 
    to xs:anyType, and appropriately rewording the text in table 2-7.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x137
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0034.html

Topic: Issue 137

Properties should not be limited to simple types

JM: Glen proposed resolution. 
Proposed resolution: Change the xs:anySimpleType in section 
to xs:anyType, and appropriately rewording the text in table 2-7.

JM: Any concerns w/ accepting the proposal

RESOLUTION: Accept the proposal and close issue 137.

9.  Issue 130: Need async request/response HTTP binding [.1]
  - Two formulations at [.2, .3]
  - STATUS: Need to gauge interest, action someone to refine the

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x130
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0192.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0195.html

Topic: Issue 130

JM: This is actually part III issue not part I. We don't have really deal with it 
prior to f2f. Five minutes
JM: There is some discussion on the list
DaveO: We had some discussion. We need to have proposal on the table that people can live with
JM: Still needs a lot of discussion. Anyone interested in championing a proposal along with BEA
Prasad: I am interested
Jacek: It is a bit complex to put in WSDL
DaveO: We need a more concrete proposal
A number of usecases where people want to layer asynchrony on top of HTTP
We need a standardized binding for a request that comes on one HTTP request
and a call back that happens later on, via another HTTP request.
Paul: This is of interest to us. 
DaveO: We are not proposing that we standardize on WS-Addressing ReplyTo or 
any other spec that defines where the call-back address the SOAP response goes to.
It will not be defined in the WSDL binding. 
DBooth: DaveO how the Provider Agent knows the address of the Requester Agent
Paul: It could be dynamic and conveyed in the messages exchanged.
DBooth: So the reply address will be application defined and will not be in the WSDL syntax
Umit: So, are we going to define something that is not really complete? Then we will be forced
to the particular addressing scheme that the application wants.
DaveO: Don't we have the same issue with Out pattern?
Umit: Yes but, if someone is going to rely on the replyTo parameter then we need to define it in WSDL 
and use it. Otherwise the pattern will not be usable.
DaveO: I agree that this is piece of info that is dynamic that is needed. 
We already do this with Content-Location header in HTTP
This is a layering problem. We provide the infrastructure, people can layer on right dynamic behavior they want
Umit: But we need to a well defined property like "reply-destination" that we can rely on, 
that is defined at the WSDL level
DaveO: We need a standard header but, WSDL is not the place for this.
Umit: Why not?
DaveO: If we do this, it opens up the bucket into whole different areas.
Jacek: This is the same incompleteness situation with operation dispatch
Glen: We need to identify in WSDL the fact that this information is needed 
to use the binding, even though WSDL does not supply it. People can use their
own mechanism.
JM: We need to do couple of things. Change this from part I issue to part III issue
    We need to get a more refined proposal on the table, after the F2F

ACTION: Issue list editor to make this a Part III issue
ACTION: DaveO to produce a refined proposal for Asynch HTTP binding addressing the
        concerns of folks that object to leaving replyTo info out of WSDL

10. Issue 138: Second level xs:import [.1, .2]
  - Proposed resolution [.3]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html 
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0137.html 
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0022.html

Topic: Issue 138 
second level xs:import
JM: Proposal was to add some text clarifying this in the spec, that got 
degenerated into argument over what is a normative text and what is not.
Umit: I agree with Yaron that it would not hurt to add a bit more text 
to the spec to clarify this.
Amy: We cannot govern the semantics of how Schema does import. We can't redefine that
in WSDL spec. We cannot change the semantics of schema import.
Umit: That is not what is being requested. A bit more clarification text.
Amy: If we are adding non-normative text, I am in favor of explaining schema import
We got clarify that we can not change schema and any explanation we give is non-normative
Prasad: People of this WG have tripped over this issue a few times and I agree this deserves 
clarification. I see Amy's point on non-normative text. We should consider putting this in 
JM: This is really a clarification issue
DaveO: Can we wait for week prior to closing this?
JM: Original proposal was to allow to refer to schema constructs that are buried 
deep in the schema import chain
Tom: That is not going to fly. We decided to punt that to Schema.
JM: Yes. Moreover, the WSDL import is designed to be consistent with Schema import.
DaveO: This would be good topic to include in the primer
Umit: Putting in the primer or not, it does not change the semantics
JM: If we want to explain how this all works perhaps primer is a better place
JM: Dbooth, Do you want to put this in this primer.
DBooth: If a small non-normative text in the spec would do it, that is fine
Amy: If we put this in the spec, it needs to be clearly marked as informative
JM: we could put it as a NOTE
DBooth: Are Notes non-normative? I am not sure. Need to check.
It is editorial issue, how to mark this non-normative
JM: Ok lets accept the proposal to add explanatory text non-normatively to the core spec, with marked 
as an editorial item to figure out where to put it in the spec, and how to mark it non-normative; 
and close this issue. Any objections?
Arthur: Question, is this WSDL import or schema import issue?
JM: Specifically about referring from WSDL to schema components that are imported
Arthur: Imported via another WSDL ? WSDL permits two kinds of imports. 
It is no clear what the chain of imports are.
JM: The schema element in types section imports another schema, from WSDL I can only 
refer to schema components that are defined in the in-line schema unless I add a separate
import for the second schema at the WSDL level.
Amy: Essentially we need to obey the semantics of schema import
Arthur: If WSDL import is the source of confusion, we should make it more precise
Amy: Do we have an issue to clarify visibility of schema elements of imported WSDLs?
JM: I thought we addressed that at F2F and accepted a proposal.
Amy: Ok

JM: Ok 138 is successfully disposed (closed).
RESOLUTION: Close issue 138 by adding explanatory text to Part 1 explaining the behavior and the reason for it (suggestion in the proposed resolution mail).

11. Issue 120: Operation Name feature proposal [.1, .2]
      Mark Baker had some comments [.3, .4].

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x120
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0082.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0173.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0175.html

New Topic: 
Issue 120: Operation Name visibility feature proposal
Umit: I don't understand Mark Baker's issue is with the proposal.
Umit: Explains her proposal
Glen: It seems Mark Baker wants style instead of just features and properties
Umit: The proposal says if you are using RPC style you are automatically compliant 
with the feature, because of the way RPC style is defined. RPC style is not a requirement
Glen: You could say style implements the feature
Umit: The problem we are trying to resolve does not occur with RPC style
Glen: MB says you can also introduce other styles like inherited, .... I don't know exactly what he wants :)
Umit: The intent of this whole thing is solve the uniqueness of an operation on the wire problem
Glen: We need more time to understand what MB is asking for before we can resolve this issue
Umit: People have been complaining we don't have good examples of features and properties. 
This also defines two different SOAP modules.
Sanjiva: Why does this proposal have a module definition?
Glen: We need to deal with this in the doc/lit case
Sanjiva: There is no doc/lit concept anymore
clarifying discussion on features, properties and modules how they are used
Jeff: Rather than doing an exegesis on MB's proposal, we ought to say we don't understand MB's issues
and we can not make any changes until we understand.
Jacek: I like the proposal but, in the module you identify the operation by the component designator URI. 
I think a QName would be better. It is a minor tweak.
Glen: It was originally QName but we changed. Can't recall why.
Umit: Operation names are not really QNames. This is perhaps an issue.
There are warnings in the current spec not to treat operation QNames names as unique.
Hence we needed to change that a URI. 
Jacek: I withdraw my amendment
Dbooth: I am just wondering to what extent we want app developers from hanging themselves
Umit: This is not a question of preventing people from hanging themselves but, there is a real need to
convey the operation name in the message.
JM: Prasad needs to drop off in few minutes. We need a new scribe.
Sanjiva volunteers.
Prasad: Thanks Sanjiva
Sanjiva: There was requirement before that all the names in an interface should be unique. If they are 
unique I don't see a need for this.
Umit: For tool vendors it is difficult to relate a message coming on the wire to an operation. 
This feature makes it possible.
...more discussion on if we can live w/o this feature ....
Glen/Jacek: What if you are trying to implement a WSDL that someone else defined 
and the signatures not unique?

<END of Prasad's Scribing>
<Sanjiva takes over>

<JacekK> Jacek supports the proposal by Umit and Glen
dbooth:  proposes that WSDL generators have a rule saying they will 
         generate unique messages
glen:    its not necessarily wsdl's problem .. 
<JacekK> but if I take a WSDL (an interface) that doesn't make 
         messages unique on the wire and I'm implementing it, I can 
         use the header, but don't I have to change the interface to 
         specify it uses the feature anyhow? The basic idea was that 
         I wouldn't have to change the interface.
sanjiva (while he was scribe): there are other solutions to doing this
         without WSDL having to address this; it may involve specs that 
         are not part of WSDL scope
JM:      asks Glen whether its possible to define these features, 
         properties and modules as a separate doc
Glen:    yes its possible
JM:      Notes that we don't define any other specific modules or soap
         headers right now.
Glen:    explains further how a SOAP engine would do this via a module
Umit:    the definition of the feature and its implementation can be
Umit:    would like to put soap module and feature definition in core spec
Sanjiva: proposes a new document to contain specific features such as 
         the operation name
Glen:    this will be an always required feature
Sanjiva: That changes this discussion completel
Umit:    No that's not required .. only if u put it in the WSDL
Glen:    No it is always required
Umit:    Will reply to Mark Baker's concerns to try to clarify his position
JM:      Let's try to find a way to move forward
Glen:    syntax of this feature doesn't necessarily have to be in every
         WSDL, but this feature is always there conceptually

ACTION: Umit to update proposal to make clear that this always required

Sanjiva: Why did you not propose this to be a part of the WSDL namespace 
         if it must always be there?
Paul:    Is this feature binding specific?
Glen/Umit: No but the soap:module is of course binding spceific
Jack:    doesn't see why every WSDL must implement this feature?
Tom:     If u support the RPC style then you automatically satisfy this 
JM:      Proposes we think about this and let Umit fulfill her AI

12. Issue 135: WSDL Specification readability [.1]
    "The WSDL specs contains a lot of formulaic text, making them 
    harder to read than they could be. A lot of the infoset related 
    data could be easily moved into an appendix. This would make the 
    bulk of the spec just as informative and a lot easier to read.  
    Could we move some of the formulaic text to an appendix?"

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x135

Sanjiva complains ..
JM:      May be improvements that can be done to reduce formalaic stuff
DaveO:   accurate representation (move infoset gorp to an appendix)
DaveO:   can we re-factor to improve it to icrease the boilerplate/noise
DaveO:   will come up with concrete examples of what can be factored
Sanjiva: says we did this discussion earlier and decided on the model 
         we have now
Glen:    compromise: include some example
Sanjiva: +1 to adding examples; will you provide them please?
Glen:    agrees!!! 
DaveO:   asks Sanjiva to summarize some of the variations of the spec 
         we've gone thru
Sanjiva: suggests looking at WD1 vs. WD2
JM:      Asks DaveO to propose specific changes and suggests we 
         shouldn't embark on a re-factoring at this time.

Umit asks where the edtodo is:
* scribe umit its .../edtodo.html

ACTION: Jonathan to add links from the home page to the edtodo and the media-types archive.

Meeting adjourned.
Received on Friday, 13 February 2004 15:35:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:38 UTC