- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:41:03 -0700
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Web Services Description Working Group
03 June 2004 Telcon
Present:
David Booth W3C
Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems
Ugo Corda SeeBeyond
Glen Daniels Sonic Software
Paul Downey British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet Canon
Hugo Haas W3C
Tom Jordahl Macromedia
Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft)
Josephine Micallef Telcordia/SAIC
Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle
Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce
Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon
David Orchard BEA Systems
Bijan Parsia University of Maryland MIND Lab
Arthur Ryman IBM
Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates
Jerry Thrasher Lexmark
Asir Vedamuthu webMethods
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
Regrets:
Amelia Lewis TIBCO
Adi Sakala IONA Technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda
1. Assign scribe. Lucky minute taker for this week is one of:
Erik Ackerman, Adi Sakala, Tom Jordahl,
William Vambenepe, Prasad Yendluri, Jean-Jacques Moreau
Kevin Liu is the scribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Approval of minutes:
- May 19-21 FTF [.1, .2, .3] and Summary [.4]
- May 27th [.5] Late regrets from Jeff.
Minutes Approved with no objection
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0075.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0074.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0073.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0072.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0087.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Review of Action items [.1].
RETIRED 2004-01-28: Philippe and JMarsh will look at the ipr for
test suite.
PENDING 2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going.
PENDING 2004-04-29: Part 1 editors to adopt Jacek's "purpose of the
binding" text, without "interchangeable"
endpoints, and using "confidentiality" (or
similar) instead of TLS.
DONE [.5] 2004-05-19: Media type editors to implement these
resolutions prior to publication.
PENDING 2004-05-19: Editors to include in the primer an example
that uses MTOM. (Issue 72)
PENDING 2004-05-19: Editors to make propogation of modules and f&p
use the nearing enclosing scope. (Issue 180)
PENDING 2004-05-19: Editors to fix component model to remove
default* properties, use mapping from syntax
instead. (Issue 182)
PENDING 2004-05-20: Editors to incorporate Hugo's full potato
proposal. (Issue 54)
PENDING 2004-05-20: David Orchard to update HTTP binding to
include discussion of how to generate an
accepts header from schema annotations
conformant to the media types extension
document, and to use outputSerialization
based on that information.
PENDING 2004-05-20: Editors to incorporate http:{properties} into
binding.
PENDING 2004-05-21: Sanjiva to implement the resolution that
@soapaction not there means no soapaction.
(Issue 1)
PENDING 2004-05-21: Part 2 Editors to add such a statement.
(Issue 191)
PENDING 2004-05-21: Part 3 Editors to add a statement to relate
each of the two soap meps to wsdl meps.
(Issue 191)
PENDING 2004-05-21: Editors to add ednotes to the spec to
indicate areas that had contention. (Issue
190)
PENDING 2004-05-21: Editors to remove @separator from HTTP
binding. (Issue 190)
PENDING 2004-05-21: DaveO to write up a scenario to motivate path
creation on a per-operation basis. (Issue
190)
PENDING 2004-05-21: Editors to write up that we allow
http:version etc. in the soap binding when
the protocol is http. (Issue 190)
PENDING 2004-05-21: Editors to update part 3 to say that for SOAP
Response MEPs the URI will be generated
following the HTTP binding rules for
generating a URI (for GET). (Issue 61)
PENDING 2004-05-21: Editors to update soap binding default rules
to allow use of MTOM. (Issue 184)
PENDING 2004-05-21: Amy to provide wording to go into spec to say
that our bindings only support the identified
MEPs but others can be handled if appropriate
rules are defined elsewhere. (Issue 155)
DONE [.2] 2004-05-27: Hugo will specify how to use XOP, MTOM re
Issue 154.
DONE [.3] 2004-05-27: Glen will open an issue on How to mark in
WSDL which elements are optimizable.
(Deferred till Hugo's is complete.)
DONE [.4] 2004-05-27: Paul will make a proposal (to map HTTP faults
to abstract faults) within one week or drop
the suggestion.
PENDING 2004-05-27: Editors to add http:faultSerialization
attribute.
PENDING 2004-05-27: DaveO will write up better description of
this issue (189).
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0088.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0089.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0086.html
[.5] http://www.w3.org/2004/04/xml-media-types.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Administrivia
a. Upcoming FTFs
- August 2-4 (London)
Logistics [.1], registration [.2].
- September 14-16 (Toronto) [.3]
b. Review of I18N WS Task Force documents [.4]
c. Public photos? [.5]
Bijan is concerned with making his picture public without control.
Decided not to make group photos public.
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/04-08-f2f.htm
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Mar/0064.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004May/0000.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0034.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Jun/0000.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Task Force Status.
a. Media type description
- Update on publication of 1st Working Draft [.4]
close to publish the media type document.
Hugo: working on it. expect it will be done end of next week
b. QA & Testing
- Suggested QA plan [.1]
- More details from Arthur [.2]
- Interop bake-off
Jonathan spoke with Hugo. would be nice to have implementations from
members and community after last call.
c. Schema versioning
- Waiting to hear back from Schema on my draft "charter."
- Henry's validate-twice write-up [.3]
still coming out.
[.1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/att-0029/QA_Oper
ational_Checklist.htm
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0037.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0019.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0082.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
6. New Issues. Issues list [.1].
- How to mark which elements to optimize (Hugo) [.2]
- (I will catalog Mark N's issues soon).
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0089.html
Jonathan: a little confused about what the issue is about
Hugo: one use case - a service provider really wants somebody to use xop
optimization for some reason. didn't get answer for an earlier
questions. It's not clear if something is required to be optimized, but
what if optimization doesn't happen?
Glen: more concerned that elements tend to be optimized, but it's kind
of weird to require something to be optimized
Asir: if you want to specify something to optimize, especially something
nested in the tree, wsdl doesn't have the facility to do it
Jonathan: xop optimization is based on the schema, and you can go to any
part of the schema.
Hugo: proposed
DavidB: agreed with Glen
Prasad: concerned about the complexity introducing such thing in schema.
it should be in the binding.
Jonathan: optimization is usually for binary data
Glen: is it indicated by the media type?
Ugo: receiving side might not be able to digest something that is not
optimized. WSDL1.1 or soap1.1 provides at least a hint for that.
Kevin: is that about client requirement?
jonathan: service can also receive message.
Ugo: there is ambiguity what to optimize, what not to
DavidB: that ambiguity is a feature of xop
Glen: would it be sufficient to indicate the media type and in the
binding saying "please use http optimization feature"?
Jonathan: WSDL only indicates that mtom may be used. Can we put this on
to XMLP group to provide a way in MTOM/xop to indicate some elements are
required to be optimized?
should we do a straw poll: do you see we need a facility to indicate
some parts of a message is required to be optimized?
More discussion between ugo, glen, jonathan, and Asir about if we really
need the facility. more are saying it's necessary to be able to indicate
the requirement, but question is where is the right place to do. in
schema, part of mediatype annotation, some new wsdl construct, or in the
http optimization feature? is it reasonable to ask XMLP group to work on
this?
straw poll: do we need to be able to say which parts of a message must
be optimized?
Yes: 7
No:4
a bunch of Abstain
We have a preference to push this forward. will ask XMLP if they think
such facility is reasonable, and can they consider add something to
indicate the requirement in the mtom feature. will see what happen
ACTION: Jonathan to communicate this to the XMLP WG.
------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Issue 154: Multi-part post in HTTP binding [.1]
- Hugo's proposal to close with no action [.2]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x154
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0088.html
Hugo: I realize that when open the issue I was misled by the name of
http optimization mechanism.
Actually We can use multi-part related by using mtom feature, for both
soap and http.
Issue is closed with no action.
Do we want to send a comment to XMLP that the name is confusing?
ACTION: Hugo to write a message for the WSD group to XMLP about the
confusing name of http optimization feature
------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Issue 166: Binding of Faults in HTTP Binding [.1]
- Hugo's proposal [.2]
- Paul's fault proposal [.3] Hugo's response [.4]
Paul: recap the issue
Hugo: Paul wants to specify more than one error code for a fault. It
makes sense to me to specify only one error code.
Sanjiva: Paul is trying to map http fault to WSDL fault. it should be
the other way around
more discussions among Sanjiva, Paul, Hugo and Jonathan. Sanjiva and
Hugo suggest going with a modified version of Paul's proposal for ONE
http code
Jonathan: sounds we are in agreement, but still confused. need a write
up of a full proposal?
Hugo, Sanjiva: feel comfortable with Paul's proposal if it's modified
for one code
Paul: ok with one code
RESOLUTION: Close 166 with adopting Paul's proposal with ONE code
ACTION: editors to incorporate Paul's proposal with ONE http code
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x166
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0032.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0086.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0002.html
running out of time. the following items are not covered
Adjourn at 9:30 AM Pacific.
------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Issue 189: Binding message content to URI [.1]
- Is this DaveO's action item?
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x189
------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Issue 158: Setting HTTP headers in the HTTP binding [.1]
- ADD related.
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x158
------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution of the above issues completes Part 3!!
------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Issue 112: New headers/body style? [.1]
- ADD proposal [.2]
- friendly amendment [.3]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x112
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0167.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0170.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Issue 130: Need async request/response HTTP binding [.1]
- David Orchard's Async proposal [.2]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x130
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0029.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
13. XML 1.1 issues (time permitting)
- Issue 174: Tie WSDL conformance to XML conformance? [.1]
- Issue 175: Is it valid for a XML 1.1 document to import or
include a XML 1.0 document (and vice versa)? [.2]
- Issue 176: Can a WSDL 2.0 XML 1.1 document contain (or
reference), a XML Schema 1.0 type description? [.3]
- Issue 177: Normative dependence on XML Schema 1.0 precludes
XML 1.1 [.4]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x174
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x175
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x176
[.4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x177
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled for future telcons
------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Effort to simplify our spec.
- DavidB [.1] and Jonathan [.2] have provided some data points.
- Arthur's suggestion [.3]
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0162.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0006.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0028.html
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 14:41:32 UTC