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

Minutes: 19 February 2004 WS Description WG telcon

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:13:59 -0800
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA202B5331B@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Minutes: Web Services Description WG 
19 February 2004

 Erik Ackerman          Lexmark
 David Booth            W3C
 Allen Brookes          Rogue Wave Software
 Paul Downey            British Telecommunications
 Youenn Fablet          Canon
 Martin Gudgin          Microsoft
 Hugo Haas              W3C
 Tom Jordahl            Macromedia
 Jacek Kopecky          Systinet
 Sandeep Kumar          Cisco Systems
 Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
 Jonathan Marsh         Chair (Microsoft)
 Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce
 Jean-Jacques Moreau    Canon
 Bijan Parsia           University of Maryland MIND Lab
 Arthur Ryman           IBM
 Adi Sakala             IONA Technologies
 Igor Sedukhin          Computer Associates
 William Vambenepe      Hewlett-Packard
 Asir Vedamuthu         webMethods
 Sanjiva Weerawarana    IBM
 Umit Yalcinalp         Oracle
 Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.

 Roberto Chinnici       Sun Microsystems
 Glen Daniels           Sonic Software
 Amelia Lewis           TIBCO
 Ingo Melzer            DaimlerChrysler
 David Orchard          BEA Systems
 Jeffrey Schlimmer      Microsoft
 Jerry Thrasher         Lexmark


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

Scribe: Jean-Jacques Moreau.
IRC: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/19-ws-desc-irc

2.  Approval of minutes:
  - Jan 22nd telcon [.1]
  - Jan 28-30 FTF [.2, .3, .4] and Summary [.5]
  - Feb 5th telcon [.6]
  - Feb 12th telcon [.7]

All minutes approved.

[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0061.html
[.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
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0076.html

3.  Review of Action items [.1].
PENDING   2003-09-18: Marsh to review the QA operational
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.
DUE FTF   2004-01-28: Sanjiva to consistify the @name attributes.
DUE FTF   2004-01-29: David Booth to suggest improvements to the 
                      spec clarifying "WSDL processor".
PENDING [.2] 2004-01-30: DaveO to write up a proposal for augmenting 
                      schema information to enable versioned data.
DONE [.3] 2004-01-30: DavidO to write request to schema group to 
                      address the issue of schema not supporting 
                      ignoring extended content.
DUE FTF   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.
REASSIGNED TO HUGO 2004-01-30: Hugo to draft a note for the group around

                      safe operations.
DONE [.4] 2004-02-12: Philippe to check on teleconference facilities 
                      for Tech Plenary f2f.
DONE [.5] 2004-02-12: Editors to update messageReference -> label in 
                      part 2 as well.
DONE [.6] 2004-02-12: Issue list editor to make this a Part III issue.

Jonathan took up issues list editing

PENDING   2004-02-12: DaveO to produce a refined proposal for Asynch 
                      HTTP binding addressing the concerns of folks 
                      that object to leaving replyTo info out of WSDL.
DUE FTF   2004-02-12: Umit to update OperationName proposal to make 
                      clear that this feature is always required.
DONE [.7] 2004-02-12: Jonathan to add links from the home page to the 
                      edtodo and the media-types archive.
PENDING   2004-02-12: David Orchard to produces a specific example of 
                      the kind of specification improvements he

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0047.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0124.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0076.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Feb/0022.html
[.6] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x130
[.7] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/

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

No objection to have (informal or formal) meeting with XMLP at plenary
May happen during lunch

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

Next weeks call.

  c. Charter renewal - everyone needs to be reappointed [.4]

AC reps need to reappoint WG participants

  d. Handling Privacy [.5] review

Post FTF.

[.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/
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Feb/0033.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0119.html

5.  Task Force Status.
 a. Properties and Features (dormant)
 b. Patterns (dormant)
 c. Attributes (dormant)
 d. Media type description (dormant)

XMLP worried pulled TF back into WSD WG
XMLP guys would still like to participate.
Please use the TF list for discussions on the proposal.

 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].
  - 139: Non-deterministic schema (Gudge) [.2]
  - 140: Version attribute proposal (Tom) [.3]
  - 141: Should WSDL say anything about whitespace in SOAP:Body? 
         (Jacek) [.4]
  - 142: Name of "message" component (Bijan) [.5]
  - 143: Referencing other type systems (Bijan) [.5]
  - 144: Why can't message reference simpleTypes? (Bijan) [.5]
  - 145: How can you tell which type system is in use? (Bijan) [.5]
  - 146: should WSDL be able to describe an operation with *anything* 
         in the message? (Jacek) [.6]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0045.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0049.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0083.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0046.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0110.html

Note that I am not treating the following thread as an issue yet:
  - Reuse faults by ref (DaveO) [.7]
I'm waiting for confirmation from DaveO that this is not obsoleted by
FTF decisions.

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

7.  Issue 140: Version attribute [.1]
  - Tom's initial proposal [.2] and follow-on proposal [.3]
    (If this issue isn't ripe for decision, we'll move on fairly

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x136
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0049.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0069.html

Bijan:    use Dublin-core
Sanjiva:  no
Sanjiva:  issues with inheritance, binding versioning, etc.
[* asir:  Bijan, may I request you to give me a pointer to Dublin-Core 
          versioning mechanism.]
[jjm      +1 to Sanjiva]
Tom:      sympathetic to Sanjiva; however, like simple things; don't
          to have complex mechanism
[Gudge:   +1 from Gudge for a simple mechanism or no mechanism]
Paul:     branching becomes important when more than one person
          the same WSDL
Tom:      Assumption: myWSDL, myService, indicate when things have
          in compatible or incompatible way
[Bijan:   Dublin Core defines a metadata elemtn "relation". Relation has

          a number of specializations inclusing isVersionOf,
          etc. See:
[*dbooth: wonders what Tom does in the case of a *mostly* compatible
[Bijan:   There is a schema defined by DCMI: 
Umit:     Supported Tom's proposal at f2f. Need extra rules to support
          multiple inheritance
Tom:      no longer true in my latest proposal. Just use the leaf 
          interface version number, forget about parents
[Bijan:   Some info on expression qualified dc:elements:
Jacek:    Problem with inheritance, e.g. B inherits from A, A changed 
          by owning company, then B, implemented by a different company,

          is broken (as well as its binding)
[Bijan:   I should note that what I do with dublin core is mostly in
          not in XML.]
Tom:      No, by definition
Jonathan: back to mailing list
[pauld:   thinks Dublin Core looks interesting, if Version can be
[Bijan:   A discussion on using Dublin Core with XSLT:
[Bijan:   An article about using an RDF encodign of Dublin Core with
[Bijan:   Hmm. I note a problem with using dublin core for 'version'...
          it doesn't expres that document X *is version* (number) 1, or 
          2. It allows you to express that this document *is a version* 
          of some other document. How annoying.]
[Bijan:   http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/identifier 
[* JacekK asks bijan if he meant identifier for versioning and whether 
          dcterms:hasVersion vould be better (I don't know much about 
          dc, especially dcterms:hasVersion)]
[* bijan  originally meant hasVersion and isVersionOf, but they are 
          *relational*. They say that I'm a version of X, not *which* 
          version I am. Identifier would allow associating a *Version 
          identifier* with a  document.]

8.  Issue 136: proposal to add in-optional-out [.1]
  - Amy calls for a quick decision [.2]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x136
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0042.html

Amy:      +1
Jonathan: straw poll?
TomJ:     mandatory to implement?
Jonathan: no

RESOLUTION: Accepted, no objection

9.  Issue 96: Intermediaries [.1]
    Jean-Jacques to re-present the concrete issue.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x96
JJM:      SOAP does support intermediaries. Intermediaries sit between 
          the initial sender and ultimate receiver. They can process and

          add header blocks.
[* JacekK intermediaries can change the body.]
JJM:      This processing can be described in a WSDL separate from the 
          ultimate receiver WSDL. But there is some interaction and 
Sanjiva:  Could you come up with a concrete proposal? Seems to apply to 
          SOAP only; difficult to see exactly what this is about.
JJM:      Yes, was actually planning on doing so this week; could do 
          next week.  Supporting intermediaries has impact on client 
          and server side.
Umit:     yes, and we care for both (in general).
Jonathan: back to email, and would be good if JJ could come up with

10. Issue 115: Improving on-the-wire conformance [.1]
    Need a volunteer to develop a proposal.
    Jacek did so (?) at [.2]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x115
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0121.html

DavidB:   remove definition of WSDL processor from WSDL language
Jonathan: is proposal from Jacek mutually exclusive [with issue 79]?
Jacek:    My proposal does not affect conformance, just what a processor

          should do in case of error.
Jonathan: can we merge them?
DavidB:   Yes, will do
Umit:     issue at Oracle with wire conformance.  Cannot even talk about

          wire conformance, for example if security is involved,
          on the wire will look different.  What does a WSDL message
Sanjiva:  it's abstract.
Jonathan: in the absence of extensions and features, what goes on the 
          wire is what is described in the binding.
Umit & Sanjiva: yes!
Jonathan: so no issue in that case?
Sanjiva:  proposal for Part 3 ednote: "Actual binding format is not just
          defined by the binding, but also by the extension elements in
DavidB:   Extensions may change the semantics of a WSDL document; for 
          that part of the WSDL document, gets delegated to that
Jonathan: so add something along the lines of Sanjiva's proposal? And
          reclassify as Part 3?
Umit:     Would like to see write-up until sees the issue
Sanjiva:  make it editorial?
Umit:     Need to check within Oracle
DavidB:   May not be Part 3 only
Sanjiva:  Part 1 doesn't talk about wire, etc.
Jonathan: need clear statement of our intent before closing the issue
Jacek:    Should we say only required extensions may change semantics?
[Marsh:   1) Part 1 says extensibility changes the semantics; 2) Part 3 
          says Actual binding format is not just defined by the binding,

          but also by the extension elements in use;]
DavidB:   this is very valid, but issue 79

ACTION:   Editor to add statement to Part 1 "extensibility changes 
ACTION:   Editor to add statement to Part 3 "actual binding format 
          defined by extensions if present"

Confirm this proposed resolution at a later time.

11. Issue 143: Referencing other type systems (Bijan) [.1]
    Text in 2.4.1 and 2.4.3 is inconsistent.
    Option 1:
      Clarify that extension type systems reuse the {message} component,
      (optionally) add a type system identifier property.
    Option 2:
      Clarify that extension type systems add corresponding extension
      Components, and {message} is XML Schema specific.
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0046.html

jmarsh summarises from agenda and asks bijan for a preference
Jonathan: need more flexibility?
JacekK:   we are introducing extensibility for other type systems.
          in bindings, e.g. SOAP binding. SOAP message could be
          either by XML schema or SOAP data model schema. Propose to 
          suggest a message is a single XML element, defined using a
          specific type system. Against extending messages as proposed 
Jonathan: would issue 144 affect your decision on 143?
JacekK:   simpleTypes can be treated as elements with simple content
Gudge:    Not sure understands exactly the issue.  Spec currently 
          doesn't require us to say where this elements came from
Bijan:    it does say so
Sanjiva:  this is a bug
Gudge:    we indicate the element type could be populated by XML Schema,

          but also by DTD or RelaxNG
Jonathan: some editorial work on section 2.2.1. Bijan would be satisfied

          with this resolution to this issue.
[Gudge:   Add text to row 3 of table 2-4 clarifying that the message 
          attribute ALWAYS refers to an element declaration in the 
          {element declarations} property on the definitions component 
          defined in 2.1. Clarify similar text in bulleted list in 
          Section 2.4.1]
Jacek:    If allow adding other components, would need extra formalism 
          to mark these components as "data carrying", and binding is 
          expected to serialize such components.
[Bijan:   Gudge: when would one populate a message component get
          by a non-element attribute?  "The element declaration resolved
          by the value of the message attribute information item if
          otherwise a similar construct in some type system as referred
          by some other attribute information item if present, otherwise

[Gudge:   If you used an attribute other than message.]
[Bijan:   When would you do that?]
[Gudge:   So mytypesystem:Construct='Java.Lang.String']
Jonathan: add note indicating in this case? cannot reuse existing
[Bijan:   But that isn't an element declaration.]
[Gudge:   Agreed. If you have an element declaration, you use 
[Bijan:   So it couldn't populate a message component.]
JacekK:   constrain WSDL to services that carry XML data
Jonathan: isn't this another issue?
[Bijan:   So, *no* other such attribute information item will populate a

          message component.]
JacekK:   Motion to constrict ourselves to XML Elements on the grounds 
          of the alternative being too hairy
Jacek:    restrict ourselves to simple elements
Jacek:    came to the conclusion that any data model can be mapped to
Sanjiva:  Gudges' proposal seems to work; however some impact on style,
bijan:    as one who will be using a radically different type system, 
          would like to understand what I will need to do to use this 
          different type system
JacekK:   have to go; but no objection if close now
Gudge:    Make life harder for binding if allow type system that don't 
          describe XML. Agreed earlier to support non-XML type systems; 
          but also to support non-XML bindings. The issue is at the 
          crossing: non-XML type systems with XML bindings.
Umit:     had similar arguments about RPC.  Was worried "element" would 
          no longer point to element type any longer.
Sanjiva:  no, we're not doing that, AFAIU
Marsh:    have we good statement if minutes?
Gudge:    think so; could post by email

ACTION:   Gudge: Send statement re. issue 143

Meeting adjourned.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 13:14:01 UTC

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