- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:41:29 -0800
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Minutes, Web Services Description WG telcon
26 February 2004
Present:
David Booth W3C
Glen Daniels Sonic Software
Paul Downey British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet Canon
Martin Gudgin Microsoft
Yaron Goland BEA Systems
Jacek Kopecky Systinet
Amelia Lewis TIBCO
Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft)
Bijan Parsia University of Maryland MIND Lab
Arthur Ryman IBM
Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates
Jerry Thrasher Lexmark
William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard
Asir Vedamuthu webMethods
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
Umit Yalcinalp Oracle
Regrets:
Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems
Hugo Haas W3C
Tom Jordahl Macromedia
Ingo Melzer DaimlerChrysler
Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon
David Orchard BEA Systems
Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft
Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda
1. Assign scribe. Lucky minute taker for this week is:
Igor Sedukhin (fallbacks: Jeffrey Schlimmer, Dietmar Gaertner,
Umit Yalcinalp, Youenn Fablet, David Orchard, Ingo Melzer,
Kevin Canyang Liu, Dale Moberg, Paul Downey, Jeff Mischkinsky,
Hugo Haas, Martin Gudgin)
Gudge forced to perform the onerous duty.
IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/26-ws-desc-irc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Approval of minutes:
- Feb 19th telcon [.1]
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0212.html
Minutes from Feb 19 meeting approved without objection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Review of Action items [.1].
SKIPPED 2003-09-18: Marsh to review the QA operational
guidelines.
SKIPPED 2004-01-08: Pauld to write up examples of schemas for the
Primer.
SKIPPED 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.
DUE FTF 2004-01-30: Umit to write a proposal on @wsdlLocation
DONE [.4] 2004-01-30: Jonathan to investigate typo in last f2f
meeting on _S_erviceType.
SKIPPED 2004-01-30: Hugo to draft a note for the group around
safe operations.
SKIPPED 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.
DONE [.3] 2004-02-12: Umit to update OperationName proposal to make
clear that this feature is always required.
DUE FTF 2004-02-12: David Orchard to produces a specific example of
the kind of specification improvements he
envisions.
->EDTODO 2004-02-19: Editors to add statement to Part 1 on
"extensibility changes semantics".
->EDTODO 2004-02-19: Editors to add statement to Part 3 on "Actual
binding format is not just defined by the
binding, but also by the extension elements
in use.
DONE [.5] 2004-02-19: Gudge to send statement of proposed resolution to
issue 143.
[.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/0152.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0224.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0229.html
Sanjiva will try to send proposal for consistifying (sp?) the name
attribute today. David Booth is about to send mail about what 'WSDL
Processor' means. Jonathan's action of typo in last FTF meeting on
_S_erviceType is done ( by Umit ). Proposal for Issue 143 sent by
Gudge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Administrivia
a. Upcoming FTFs
- March 4-5, Cannes-Mandelieu, France [.1]
Joint session with the TAG (Thurs PM), XMLP (Wed noon)
Agenda (due soon) includes all Part 1, 2 issues, listed here.
Chair: encourages WG members to attend meeting with XMLP at noon
on Wednesday next week
Umit: Question about mediatype presentation during joint meeting
with XMLP.
[Sanjiva: FYI I have just updated edtodo with the editorial action
items from the last telecon.]
Chair: encourages people to look at the agenda and issues list before
FTF next week.
b. Web Architecture Document [.2, .3] review:
Volunteers so far: Jacek, Bijan, Jonathan
c. (post-FTF) Charter renewal - everyone needs to be reappointed [.4]
d. (post-FTF) Handling Privacy [.5] review
[.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
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].
- HTTP binding uses static content-type header (Youenn) [.2, .3]
- Double check URI comparison algorithm and relative URI use
(Jonathan)
[.4]
- Duplicate features with conflicting @required (Jonathan) [.5]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0131.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0137.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0180.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0208.html
Note that I am not treating the following thread as an issue yet:
- Reuse faults by ref (DaveO) [.6]
I'm waiting for confirmation from DaveO that this is not obsoleted by
FTF decisions.
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0140.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Web Architecture Document [.1, .2] review
- Jacek's review [.3]
- Jonathan's notes [.4]
Potential topics for TAG discussion:
- Saying more about QName mapping (?)
- Error recovery vs. not having to "validate" parts of the doc not
used or examined by a processor.
- Comparison of XML namespaces with Schema and WSDL namespaces.
- Cracking a component designator URI.
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Dec/0029.html
[.2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0164.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0180.html
[Chair solicits feedback on the agenda for the joint meeting with the
TAG.]
Sanjiva: We have an edtodo about what lives at the end of a WSDL
targetNamespace.
Jonathan: TAG discussion is about whether relative URIs make sense as
targetNamespace for WSDL. Do the guidelines for XML
namespaces
apply.
Sanjiva: There is an issue about whether a WSDL targetNamespace
resolves
to a WSDL document.
Jonathan: We decided to adopt the TAG resolution
Arthur: Wasn't there a recommendation from the TAG for RDDL
Jonathan: No consensus on the TAG
Umit: I thought we we're just going to recommend, not require that
WSDL be at the end of the targetNamespace URI
Everyone: Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Issue 140: Version attribute [.1]
- Tom's initial proposal [.2] and follow-on proposal [.3]
Volunteer to consolidate or enumerate the proposals for the FTF?
[.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
Chair is looking for a volunteer to collate discussion and make a
proposal or proposals.
ACTION: DavidO to clarify where the combined version URI would appear
and how it would be used.
ACTION: Paul Downey to summarize various proposals related to issue 140
------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Issue 120: Operation Name feature proposal [.1, .2, .6]
- Mark Baker had some comments [.3, .4].
- Request for being able to detect where the OperationName is
located (Mark Baker) [.5]
- First message only, or in responses? (Jacek) [.7]
[.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
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0105.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0152.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0165.html
There has been considerable e-mail discussion
ACTION: Glen to merge discussion on Issue 120 and produce updated
proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 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.
Proposed resolution (Gudge) [.2]
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0046.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0229.html
Gudge: explains where we're at.
[Sanjiva: +1 to the design for dealing with different type systems.]
Jacek: How do we handle bindings? Do bindings need to be aware of the
new properties?
Gudge: recollects that one would have to define new bindings (or
extend a current binding) to make them work for the new
type system
Jacek: Is this practical? Overriding our HTTP binding would be
difficult? Why not just use elements?
Sanjiva: What if you used Java type system. You could then add an
extension element/attribute to the SOAP HTTP binding that
said 'use the JAX/RPC mapping to XML'
Jacek: I'm wondering how it works with OWL. Owl has an XML
serialization, why not just use that as an 'element'?
Gudge: some people like to make their own lives difficult ;-)
Various: Discussion goes back and forth on whether we should support
non-XML type systems
Jacek: We would still fulfill our charter if we restricted ourselves
to XML Elements.
Arthur: We have a statement on other type systems that says any other
type system has to correspond to types or elements
Jonathan: I'd like to hear exactly what changes we want to the spec
Jacek: My proposal would remove extensibility points
Glen: I'd prefer to only have XML
Jonathan: People can always extend the component model anyway, so we
can't stop people from doing that
Sanjiva: The question of whether we want to support multiple type
systems, and support non-XML type systems was resolved at a
face-to-face long ago
Jonathan: This issue is only about cleaning up the component model
Umit: Maybe we should be adding text to the primer rather than the
spec
Jacek: Don't want to explicitly disallow it, just don't want text in
spec calling it out.
[dbooth: would like to see the relevant question/text pasted into IRC
if there's a poll.]
The paragraph up for deletion is in Section 3.2: "The extension
specification SHOULD, if necessary, define additional properties of
2.1.1 The Definitions Component to hold the components of the referenced
type system. It is expected that additional extensibility attributes for
Message Reference and Fault Reference components will also be defined,
along with a mechanism for resolving the values of those attributes to a
particular imported type system component.
Various: Discussion of whether we are talking about multiple type
systems
period. Or type systems that are non-XML based.
Asir: For DTD or Relax they have different components. so how can
they
appear in {element declarations}
Gudge: Because they defined the same infoset properties for the
element
they are describing.
Jonathan: Want to take a poll on whether to remove text in section 3.2
Sanjiva: I think this requires us to reopen non-XML type system issues
Jacek: I don't think we're prohibiting it, we're just saying you
should
map to XML.
Bijan: I found the spec didn't tell me what I should do
Poll: Shall we remove the text pasted above, beginning "The
extension
specification" from Section 3.2
Yes: David Booth, Glen, Jacek
No: Gudge, Yaron, Amy, Bijan, Arthur, Jerry, Asir, Sanjiva
Abstain: Paul, Youenn, Umit
Straw poll was 8 against removing text, 3 for removing it
No objections to declaring concensus
Dbooth: When we talk about a WSDL processor there may be an effect
[Back to the body of Issue 143 and Gudge's proposal]
The diffed draft is
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.xml?rev=1
.14.2.1
And there is a follow up proposal to add the words "properties and" to
section 3.2
Chair: Looking for concensus to adopt the diff version from Gudge
and
the additional to words to Section 3.2
RESOLVED: Close issue 143, by adopting Gudge's diffs as pointed to in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0232.html, and
"properties and" in section 3.2
ACTION: Editors to adopting the diff in Gudge's proposal
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0232.html)
along with the two additional words to Section 3.2. (#143)
------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Issue 144: Why can't message reference simpleTypes? (Bijan) [.1]
- and non-XML types in general (Youenn) [.2]
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0046.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0131.html
Bijan: I think this is moot because we can only refer to elements
Youenn: HTTP binding ( non-SOAP ) can transmit simple values. Would
be good if we could refer to simple types
Jonathan: Part of that recorded as a Part 3 issue. But would also
require changes to Part 1
Youenn: Or you'd need some 'encoding' of elements to strip the
outer wrapper
Bijan: We have a {type declarations} property
Sanjiva: Holdover from earlier spec version. Should have been removed
as part of decision to always refer to elements.
RESOLUTION: No objection to closing issue 144 with no action.
------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Issue 145: How can you tell which type system is in use? (Bijan)
[.1]
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0046.html
Now moot
RESOLUTION: No objection to closing issue 145 with no action.
------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Issue 142: Name of "message" component (Bijan) [.1]
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0046.html
s/Topic: Name of message component/Topic: Name of message property of
Message/Fault Reference component
RESOLUTION: No objection to renaming the message property to element
ACTION: Editors to rename the message property to "element" (#142).
------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Issue 132: Message attribute optional [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x132
Various: Discussion about whether the issue is about optional
attribute or empty body.
NEW ISSUE: Need a mechanism to indicate body is empty.
Jacek: There are 3 issues. Is message attribute optional?
How do we say a body is empty?
How do we say a body can be anything?
Jacek: Refering to types would solve both this new issue and 146
RESOLVED: Close issue 132, must be optional to accomodate extensions.
------------------------------------------------------------------
15: Issue 122: messageReference semantics on binding [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x122
[Marsh:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0114.html]
Marsh: summarizes the issue
JacekK: could be editorial
Sanjiva: Think it's OK the way it is
Jacek: Saying that the binding component points to the MEP albeit
indirectly would help
RESOLVED: Close issue 122 with editorial improvements.
ACTION: Editors to clarify wording (#122)
------------------------------------------------------------------
16: Issue 125: Make messageReference mandatory [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x125
Various: No reason to reopen this issue, we've discussed it and got
agreement
RESOLVED: Close with no action. There is no new information that would
lead us to reopen this topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------
17: Issue 97: Schema language for SOAP encoding [.1]
- Proposal from Jacek [.2]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x97
[.2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/att-0098/SOAPDat
aModelSchema.html__charset_ISO-8859-2
Jacek: Would like to see this in the spec, perhaps as a
non-normative appendix
Paul: I'm interested in SOAP encoding. Will take a look at the
doc.
Asir: I can look at it too.
ACTION: Paul and Asir to review the SOAP Data Model Schema.
Jonathan: I think we should shoot to publish this as a Note
Various: Discussion of publishing jointly with XMLP
Jonathan: Easier to publish with one owner
[Will take up at FTF, both jointly with XMLP.]
End of agenda
Topic: May F2F
Meeting is 19th-21st May at IBM, Madison Ave, NY, details coming soon.
Topic: Other F2F Locations
Possibilites: Toronto in Sepetember, London (BT) in July, chair is
soliciting other options.
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 14:41:24 UTC