Minutes, 27 May 2004 WS Description telcon

Web Services Description Working Group
27 May 2004 Telcon

 Erik Ackerman          Lexmark
 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
 Amelia Lewis           TIBCO
 Kevin Canyang Liu      SAP
 Jonathan Marsh         Chair (Microsoft)
 Josephine Micallef     Telcordia/SAIC 
 Jean-Jacques Moreau    Canon
 Bijan Parsia           University of Maryland MIND Lab
 Arthur Ryman           IBM
 Adi Sakala             IONA Technologies
 William Vambenepe      Hewlett-Packard
 Asir Vedamuthu         webMethods

 Dale Moberg            Cyclone Commerce
 Igor Sedukhin          Computer Associates


1.  Assign scribe.  Lucky minute taker for this week is one of:
      Erik Ackerman, Adi Sakala, Arthur Ryman, Tom Jordahl,
      William Vambenepe, Prasad Yendluri, Jean-Jacques Moreau

Scribe: Arthur

2.  Approval of minutes:
  - May 13th [.1] (Corrected)


  - May 19-21 FTF [.2, .3, .4] and Summary [.5]

Postponed till next week.

  - QA TF Notes [.6]


[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0075.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0074.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0073.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0072.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0069.html

3.  Review of Action items [.1].
PENDING   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 [.6] 2004-05-06: JJM to incorporate this proposal (SOAP 1.2 
                      Binding) after removing parts that are relevant
                      to media type and intermediary 
DONE [.5] 2004-05-13: Dave Orchard to produce proposal for expressing
                      Transfer-coding as an HTTP property for F2F.
PENDING   2004-05-19: Media type editors to implement these 
                      resolutions prior to publication.
DONE [.4] 2004-05-19: Umit to communicate to XMLP the above issues 
                      and resolutions.  
DONE [.3] 2004-05-19: Glen to write an example of expressing MTOM in 
                      WSDL using f&p and send it to the XMLP WG.  
                      (Issue 72)
PENDING   2004-05-19: Editors to include in the primer an example 
                      that uses MTOM.  (Issue 72) 
DONE [.2] 2004-05-19: Editors to remove soap:header.  (Issue 96) 
DONE [.2] 2004-05-19: Editors to fix 2.2.2 to allow other protocols.
                      (Issue 181)
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 
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)
DONE [.2] 2004-05-21: Editors to remove the {web method} property 
                      from the component model (and related syntax,
                      including defaulting syntax).  (Issue 190)
PENDING   2004-05-21: Editors to add ednotes to the spec to 
                      indicate areas that had contention.  (Issue 
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 
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) 
DONE [.2] 2004-05-21: Editors to update part 1 to add optional 
                      /service/endpoint/@address  (Issue 188) 
DONE [.2] 2004-05-21: Editors to update part 3 to remove 
                      soap:address and http:address and update 
                      binding details accordingly.  (Issue 188)
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)

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0078.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0077.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0054.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0053.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0057.html

4.  Administrivia
  a. Upcoming FTFs
     - August 2-4 (London)
       Logistics [.3], registration [.4].
     - September 14-16 (Toronto) [.5]
  b. Review of I18N WS Task Force documents [.6]

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/04-05-f2f.htm
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34041/WSD0405/
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/04-08-f2f.htm
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Mar/0064.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004May/0000.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0034.html

5.  Task Force Status.
 a. Media type description
  - Seek WG approval to publish 1st Working Draft [.4]

Jonathan reviewed our resolutions with David Fallside and received
agreement.  Jonathan recommends publishing it as a Working Draft.
No objections.
RESOLUTION: Publish First Working Draft of Media type description
document, with 3 issue resolutions from FTF included.

Note that changes made at F2F have not been incorporated into the
document yet.

 b. QA & Testing
  - Suggested QA plan [.1]
  - More details from Arthur [.2]
 c. Schema versioning
  - Waiting to hear back from Schema on my draft "charter."
  - Henry's validate-twice write-up [.3]

[.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].
  - none recorded (I will catalog Mark N's issues soon).

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

Mark Nottingham comments on spec.
No new Part 3 issues
Only 5 remaining Part 3 issues.

7.  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

Note that DaveO's proposal is for SOAP not HTTP.
Please post comments to mailing list.

8.  Issue 154: Multi-part post in HTTP binding [.1]
  - Slated to revisit after MTOM/XOP support was complete.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x154

The issue is do we want to use multipart POST and MTOM?
Glen: we need to specify the analog of the SOAP MTOM feature.
ACTION: Hugo will specify how to use XOP, MTOM re Issue 154.
ACTION: Glen will open an issue on How to mark in WSDL which elements
are optimizable.

Note that the above action for Glen will be deferred until Hugo
completes his action.

9.  Issue 166: Binding of Faults in HTTP Binding [.1]
  - Hugo's proposal [.2]

[.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

Hugo recommends 4XX and 5XX return codes. 

Proposal to add a fault serialization attribute, which defaults to

No support for this proposal. No objection to always using

Paul: should we map HTTP faults like we map SOAP faults?

Hugo: There may not be much benefit to doing that in the description.
Hugo: Please make a proposal.
Glen: Or Use Cases.

<asir> Arthur and Hugo, I am little confused why we are assuming that
the fault serialization (for http binding) is always application/xml

ACTION: Paul will make a proposal within one week or drop the

Asir: Why are we assuming the fault is always application/xml?

Revisit previous decision in light of discussion.

No objection to treating fault like output - add a serialization
RESOLUTION: Add an http:faultSerialization attribute.
ACTION: Editors to add http:faultSerialization attribute.

10. 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

ACTION: DaveO will write up better description of this issue (189).

11. 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

Skipped to 112.

Resolution of the above issues completes Part 3!!
12. 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

Glen: Not ready to discuss yet.
Glen and DaveO need to discuss this by next week.

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

Arthur: our spec should state the version policy - 2 extremes, either
1.0 only or any mixture of 1.0 and 1.1

dbooth: This is a bigger issue than WSDL and I am not comfortable
resolving it here

Hugo: True, but XMLP decided to just use XML 1.0 for SOAP.
[<jjm> The XMLP message is:

Hugo: The TAG may issue a policy
[<dbooth> XMLP brought their decision to the TAG to discuss.]

If we allow XML 1.1 then our schema is non-normative since it only
applies to XML 1.0

Marsh: we can state that the schema is normative for XML 1.0 documents.

Roberto: We need to preserve the normative nature of the schema,
possibly weaking its applicability

Our spec may be directly refering to XSD 1.0 data types.

Marsh: 2 suggestions - 1) make spec independent of XML version, 2)
restrict to XML 1.0 only

Straw poll results: 8 for 1.0, 5 for 1.1

Discussion to continue.

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, 27 May 2004 15:00:44 UTC