- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 11:59:50 -0700
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Web Services Description Working Group
27 May 2004 Telcon
Attendance:
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
Regrets:
Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce
Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0083.html
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)
Approved.
- May 19-21 FTF [.2, .3, .4] and Summary [.5]
Postponed till next week.
- QA TF Notes [.6]
Noted.
[.1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/att-0081/040513-
ws-desc-irc.htm
[.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
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)
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
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)
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]
[.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].
- 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
application/xml
No support for this proposal. No objection to always using
application/xml.
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
suggestion.
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
attribute.
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:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004May/0045.html]
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