- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:56:10 -0500
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Draft minutes of WSD 2004-11-04 are at
http://www.w3.org/2004/11/04-ws-desc-minutes.htm
and also below in plain text.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Web Services Description WG
4 nov 2004
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0007.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2004/11/04-ws-desc-irc
Attendees
Present
Erik Ackerman Lexmark
David Booth W3C
Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems
Glen Daniels Sonic Software
Paul Downey British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet Canon
Anish Karmarkar Oracle
Jacek Kopecky DERI
Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft)
David Orchard BEA Systems
Arthur Ryman IBM
Jerry Thrasher Lexmark
Asir Vedamuthu webMethods
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
Erik Ackerman Lexmark
David Booth W3C
Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems
Glen Daniels Sonic Software
Paul Downey British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet Canon
Anish Karmarkar Oracle
Jacek Kopecky DERI
Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft)
David Orchard BEA Systems
Arthur Ryman IBM
Jerry Thrasher Lexmark
Asir Vedamuthu webMethods
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
Regrets
Hugo Haas W3C
Tom Jordahl Macromedia
Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce
Chair
JMarsh
Scribe
dbooth
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Approval of Minutes
2. [6]Review of Action Items
3. [7]Administrivia
4. [8]New (non-LC) Issues
5. [9]Issue LC5f
6. [10]Issue LC29d
* [11]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________________
Approval of Minutes
Last week's minutes approved.
Review of Action Items
PENDING 2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going.
PENDING 2004-09-02: Bijan to create stylesheet to generate a
table of components and properties.
PENDING 2004-09-16: Editors to move App C to RDF Mapping spec,
except the frag-id which will move
within media-type reg appendix.
PENDING 2004-09-16: Editors to fix paragraph 6-9 of section
2.1.1 moved into 2.1.2
which talks about the syntax.
DONE [.5] 2004-09-16: Hugo to get a URI to use for DTD example
in Appendix E.1 (LC38)
PENDING 2004-09-30: Arthur to add Z notation to Part 1.
PENDING 2004-10-07: Paul to set up test suite directory
structure (Hugo assist)
PENDING 2004-10-07: Primer editors to use the new
terms "Web service" and "consumer|client".
PENDING 2004-10-14: Arthur to prototype a javascript
implementation and decide on the two doc's
vs javascript method later.
PENDING 2004-10-14: Editors to add a statement like:
The Style property may constrain both
input and output, however a particular
style may constrain in only one
direction. In Section 2.4.1.1 of Part 1.
(subsumed by LC21 resolution?)
PENDING 2004-10-21: Glen to respond to Tim Ewald re: LC9.
DONE [.3] 2004-10-21: Hugo to generate a summary of pub options.
DONE [.4] 2004-10-21: Roberto to list some non-fatal errors
for consideration if that's useful.
PENDING 2004-10-28: Glen to write up the relation between
features and modules for LC18.
SUBSUMED 2004-10-28: Anish to provide a use case
for WSDLLocation via email.
[1] [12]http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[2] [13]http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html
[.3]
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0001.html
[.4]
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0008.html
[.5]
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0010.html
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[12] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0007.html
[13] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html
[14]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0001.html
[15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0008.html
[16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0010.html
Administrivia
(Discussions of Jan F2F timing; JMarsh still working on trying to
co-locate with the Addressing WG.)
dbooth has a conflict Jan 12; Asir in Brisbane for XML mtgs the week
of Jan 17; GlenD cannot do the week of Jan 24.
New (non-LC) Issues
JMarsh: 4 new issues this week, including Amy's issue of importing
WSDL 1.1, and Anne's issue of one interface per service.
... Media type description LC has been published.
... Need to decide how we wish to process issues on that document.
Issue LC5f
<Roberto>
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0008.html
[17]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0008.html
(Looking at Roberto's list of errors, to see if they are classified
acceptably.)
Roberto: For the <definitions> element to be valid, the entire
document must be valid. Therefore if it is processed, the entire
document must be validated.
DaveO: Should we use some concept of partial validity, as in XML
Schema?
Arthur: In permitting portions of a WSDL document to be invalid, what
is the objective? To make it easier on authors?
... Why not say that the result is undefined if the document is
invalid?
Roberto: That would be different than what we have now.
dbooth: We've been trying to straddle two camps.
Arthur: What's the benefit of specifying the behavior of invalid
input?
dbooth: It leads to interop problems if processors are lax (silently
permitting invalid input), because the author may not realize that
the
documen is invalid. Then it works on some processors and not on
others.
Roberto: What if a processor encounters a part of the document with a
required extension that it doesn't understand?
... This notion of partial processing is hard to justify if you have
a
global validity requirement.
... The objective is to permit a processor to ignore parts of the
document that it doesn't need.
... I also think it's important to call out as errors: references to
type system components that don't exist.
... You can do a lot of useful things even without the concrete
definition of an element.
... I think it's useful to permit some processor recovery when the
message type reference is bad, for example treating it as xs:any.
<pauld> i thought we agreed in Cannes not to define classifications
or
compliance of 'processors' but to just concentrate on if the document
is valid or not?
JMarsh: Anyone want to call all errors fatal? (No response)
Asir: What is the point of listing broken QName references here and
not in the fatal list?
Roberto: Fatal list wins.
Asir: Is there any other place where I would use a qname to reference
components?
... Same comment applies to "(3.1.3) having an "element" attribute
refer to a global type definition"
Roberto: I thought as part of Z notation we were changing the way we
refer to components.
dbooth: I am sympathetic to Arthur's suggestion that we say the
result
is undefined if the document is invalid, but we could also say a
processor SHOULD report any error that it discovers. Perhaps this
would allow latitude needed, but also encourage error reporting.
Arthur: There were two kinds of relation in a component: one
containing another; one referring to another. But the spec was
changed
to view all collections as references, and this complicated the Z
notation, because I needed to add an implicit ID on each component.
PaulD: A long time back we discussed the distinction between doc
validity and processor conformance. We agreed to focus on whether the
document is valid or not. Saying "a processor SHOULD report errors"
is
not helpful if it's embedded in a cell phone.
Asir: As it stands today I see three entries in the non-fatal errors
list, and everything is a component, these three ARE fatal errors.
Roberto: Like DBooth, I like the GIGO rule, but there are some
details
hidden that we still need to discuss. Need to be sure we don't
require
validation. We should say the processor SHOULD report an error if it
encounters one, but at present we say in some places where a
processor
MUST fail, so we still need to clarify the difference between
different kinds of errors.
JMarsh: Our original motivation for defining a WSDL processor was to
clarify the meaning of wsdl:required.
dbooth: I think we can still define the meaning of wsdl:required
without defining a WSDL processor.
Arthur: My main concern was us trying to define "garbage-in,
non-garbage out".
<pauld> thinks it might be useful to have a notion of a 'validating
wsdl processor' rather than just 'processor' which SHOULD report
errors. anyone else can go GIGO, or follow Postel's law if they're
sent an invalid *document*
JMarsh: Imagine a non-well-formed document. (Well-formed, but an
extra
char at the end.) Now imagine a WSDL processor that streams the input
and only looks at what it needs. That wouldn't conform if we require
detection of non-well-formedness errors.
... So it's hard to draw the line on what a minimal processor must
do.
PaulD: That seems ok to me. Might want to introduce the concept of a
validating WSDL processor.
JMarsh: Could say "whatever processing you do, you should detect and
report as many errors as you can".
Roberto: I don't see how we can define the meaning of wsdl:required
without defining a WSDL processor.
... There are also processor conformance requirements: must accept
XML
Schema, etc.
... Right now I see only two things that need the WSDL processor
definition: 1. you must fault if you encounter a required ext that
you
don't understand; and 2. a wsdl:include with a non-dereferenceable
URI
Arthur: Need to define the mustUnderstand concept.
<pauld> processors "should detect and report as many errors as you
can" sounds fine, if not a little "motherhood and apple pie"
dbooth: I think the spec may already define the meaning of
wsdl:required as an extension that MAY change the semantics of the
WSDL document. Therefore, if a processor doesn't recognize one, then
the result is undefined.
<Arthur> less is better so if David can avoid the need for a
processing model, I'm all for that
JMarsh: DBooth and Roberto are tending toward a model based on
document conformance, rather than defining a conformant processor. Is
this direction promising? (Some think so.)
<scribe> ACTION: dbooth to define the meaning of wsdl:required in
terms of the document, rather than processor behavior.
<Roberto> processor requirements that are independent of a processing
model are ok, e.g. MUST support XML Schema
dbooth: So it sounds like we're going in the direction of basing our
error model on document validity, and GIGO. But we could still have
some additional processor conformance requirements if we wish, such
as
a general "SHOULD report errors it sees" and some specific
requirements, such as MUST support XML Schema.
Issue LC29d
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Sep/0061.html
[18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Sep/0061.html
Any objections to accepting DaveO's proposed new text? Which is:
[[
* Mechanisms other than setting the serialization properties MAY
modify the serialization format of the instance data
<[19]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/#instance_d
ata#in
[19]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/#instance_data#in
stance_data> corresponding to the message. An example of such
modification is the WSDL SOAP Binding HTTP URI Serialization rules
[20]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/#soap-defaul
ts.
[20]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/#soap-defaults.
This binding specifies that the SOAP-Response Message Exchange
Pattern
<[21]http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapresmep>
[21]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapresmep%3E
([SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts
<[22]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/#SOAP12-PAR
T2#SOA
[22]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/#SOAP12-PART2#SOA
P12-PART2> ], Section 6.3) only supports input message serialization
as
application/x-www-form-urlencoded. Other examples of such mechanisms
are other message exchange patterns or bindings.
]]
(No objections)
dbooth: This also addresses an issue that I raised, of the old text
being unclear about how the serialization format might be changed.
[Adjourned]
Summary of New Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: dbooth to define the meaning of wsdl:required in
... terms of the document, rather than processor behavior.
_________________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl 1.94 ([24]CVS
log)
$Date: 2004/11/04 20:23:04 $
[23]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribe.perl
[24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/scribe.perl
--
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 20:56:13 UTC