- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:11:05 -0800
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Minutes, Web Service Description WG
18 November 2004 telcon
Attendance:
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
Tom Jordahl Macromedia
Anish Karmarkar Oracle
Jacek Kopecky DERI
Amelia Lewis TIBCO
Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft)
Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce
Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon
Arthur Ryman IBM
Asir Vedamuthu webMethods
Umit Yalcinalp SAP
Regrets:
Hugo Haas W3C
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda
1. Assign scribe. Lucky minute taker for this week is one of:
Umit Yalcinalp, Amy Lewis, William Vambenepe, Erik Ackerman,
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Igor Sedukhin, Jeff Mischkinsky,
David Orchard, Asir Vedamuthu, Dale Moberg, Bijan Parsia,
Sanjiva, Tom Jordahl, Paul Downey, Hugo Haas
Scribe: Umit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Approval of minutes:
- Nov 4 [.1]
- FTF Nov 9-11 [.2, .3, .4] and Summary [.5]
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0012.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0037.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0038.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0039.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0040.html
Minutes from November 4th accepted
Minutes from Nov 9-11 accepted
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Review of Action items [.1]. Editorial actions [.2].
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.
PENDING 2004-09-30: Arthur to add Z notation to Part 1.
DONE 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.
PENDING 2004-10-28: Glen to write up the relation between
features and modules for LC18.
DONE [.3] 2004-11-04: DBooth to define the meaning of
wsdl:required in terms of the document,
rather than processor behavior.
PENDING 2004-11-09: DBooth and roberto to describe
option 2 (remove definition of processor
conformance, write up clear guidelines
to developers) (LC5f)
PENDING 2004-11-09: DaveO to work on text for option
3 (redefining conformance in terms
of building the component model)
(LC5f)
PENDING 2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith
proposal using an extension namespace.
(LC54)
PENDING 2004-11-10: Asir to implement resolutions
adopted at this FTF.
PENDING 2004-11-10: Part 3 Editors to roll in Asir's changes.
PENDING 2004-11-10: Sanjiva to write the rationale for
rejecting LC75a
DONE [.7] 2004-11-10: Roberto to write up the addition of
infault and outfault at the binding
level plus modifications at the
component model. (LC55)
PENDING 2004-11-10: Glen will post an e-mail describing
the compromise proposal on formal objections.
PENDING 2004-11-10: DBooth will produce text for the spec
re: slide 12 of his presentation.
PENDING 2004-11-10: Editor remove ambiguity in purpose
of the Unique GED requirement if it exists
DONE 2004-11-10: Jonathan to create 3 new issues
from slide 25 on points 1, 2, and 4
PENDING 2004-11-10: Sanjiva will write up this proposal
and email it to the list as a response
to the objection.
PENDING 2004-11-11: Hugo to update the makefile to
generate the spec with Z
PENDING 2004-11-11: Arthur to write up a sample of what
a rewritten spec using an infoset-based
component model would look like
PENDING 2004-11-11: Arthur to issue a call for test documents
PENDING 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the
test suite for the purpose of
interoperability testing.
PENDING 2004-11-11: Hugo to ask the XMLP wg to clarify the
issue around the response in the
SOAP/HTTP binding (LC50)
PENDING 2004-11-11: DBooth and Anish to clarify what
a node is (LC50)
PENDING 2004-11-11: Editors of part 2 and 3 to add text
about WSDLMEP and SOAP mep mapping that
points to section 2.3 of part 3 (LC48b)
DONE [.4] 2004-11-11: Hugo send email about what HTTP request
is when in-only is used (LC59a)
DONE [.5] 2004-11-11: Hugo to check the HTTP bindings really
support the MEPs it claims to support (LC59a)
ACTION: Jonathan to record an issue from Hugos 59a mail.
DONE [.6] 2004-11-11: Hugo to contact Amy with our
interpretation and ask for clarification (LC76c)
PENDING 2004-11-11: Umit to check on operation@style (LC61a)
DONE [.8] 2004-11-11: Roberto check on comments in 74e and come
up with proposal. (LC74e)
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/actions.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0015.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0025.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0029.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0026.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0042.html
[.8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0044.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Administrivia
a. Jan 20,21 Melbourne, Australia hosted by BEA [.1]
f2f is in Melbourne Australia, confirmed
20-21st of Jan with joint session 19th
<dbooth> JMarsh: F2F to be Jan 20-21 and potentially Jan 19 jointly
with Addressing WG.
b. Mar 3,4? Boston
c. Good Standing
JMarsh: planning to send a message to indicate the rules for good
standing to encourage participation
d. XML Com article
JMarsh: Should we discuss the xml.com article?
Arthur: We should invite him to discuss
<kliu> +1 to arthur
Discussion on how we can handle the response continues.
<asir> +1 to arthur .. rich mentioned that he has more
Jmarsh: We are not required to have an official response from the wg.
Individuals can do it.
JMarsh: We can incorporate his comments into our comments list
DBooth: It will be helpful to engage him specifically. Ask him to
send the comments to the list. As we reach closure, we ask his
opinion on these comments
JMarsh: We should encourage him to follow our process
ACTION: JMarsh to draft a response
<pauld1> gentlemen start your (blog) engines :-)
e. Workload
JMarsh: We have a lot of work to do. There are two ways to handle this
use email to do work on the issues or to schedule more telcons
Glen: I rather use telcons rather than lots of email
JMarsh: We can issues to champions or smaller groups
Glen: January meeting is for resolving issues. But Australia meeting
may not be attended well
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest assigning mini-TF's for issues
<scribe> +1 to Dbooth
[I also stated my belief that we won't finish processing comments until
March FTF - JM]
f. Upcoming telcons
JMarsh: There is no telcon next week due to Thanksgiving. Next telcon
is on Dec 2nd. It coincides with AC meeting. We should hold
the meeting due to the work load. We will decide about Dec
23rd as we get closer to the holidays.
DBooth: Let's shift the telcon.
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Nov/0014.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
5. New (non-LC) Issues. Issues list [.1].
- Media Type tbd
[.1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.h
tml
none
------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Last Call Issues [.1]. Comments list [.2]
- LC74a-g: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial)
- LC75a-x: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments
- LC76a-d: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (Part 2)
- LC77a-b: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (Part 3)
- LC78: Editorial comments on WSDL 2.0 Part 1
- LC79: Make sure in-only mep is supported in wsdl soap12 binding
- LC80: Extension Components are not Described
- LC81: The Component Model is Underconstrained wrt the WSDL 2.0
Schema
- LC82: Operation Name Mapping Requirement Bug
- LC83: The Component Model Does Not Enforce Component Nesting
- LC84a-c: Operation Name Mapping Requirement prez
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/
------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Media Type Description [.1] Last Call published
- Jonathan to collect issues for future telcon
[.1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-media-types-20041102/
------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Issue LC5f: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance
issues (f) [.1]
- Roberto's proposal [.2]
- No final resolution from FTF, AIs to DBooth/Roberto and DaveO
to write up competing proposals
- Potential new issues:
1) Is it clear that a server must implement everything it's
description says it does?
2) Un-recognized required features result in components,
un-recognized required element-based extensions don't. Why
the difference?
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5f
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Oct/0027.html
Technical discussion deferred until next week
1) Is it clear that a server must implement everything it's
description says it does?
ACTION: DBooth to propose text to clarify that a service must
implement everything in its description
2) Un-recognized required features result in components, un-recognized
required element-based extensions don't. Why the difference?
<asir> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC80
ACTION: JMarsh to add to LC80 the difference between component model
(ref agenda #8)
JMarsh: LC5f can be handled by a task force
JMarsh: Who else is interested other than Roberto, DBooth, and
DOrchard?
ACTION: Mini-task force to propose one or two proposals for the
group for LC5f
------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Issue LC29b: Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD (b) [.1]
Issue LC18: Relationship between Features and SOAP Modules ?? [.2]
- Awaiting Glen's action
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC29b
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC18
JMarsh: We need a more detailed writeup on the relationship
Glen: Is this the same that you don't need a new feature with
every soapmodule? A soap module does not necessarily
implement a feature.
Action: Glen to send out the clarification
[Glen already has such an action, so I'm dropping this - JM]
------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Issue LC54: WSDL Last Call issue
- Awaiting DaveO's further action to cast @compatibleWith as an
extension
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC54
skipped
------------------------------------------------------------------
11. binding/operation/infault|outfault issues:
- Issue LC55: WSDL Last Call issue [.1]
- Issue LC56: Clarification for binding fault [.2]
- Issue LC61d: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (d) [.3]
- Awaiting Roberto's further action
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC55
[.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC56
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC61d
<Roberto>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0042.html
<asir> i posted 2 questions on Roberto's proposal
Roberto: A bindingoperation level fault is added to enable adding
modules to faults
JMarsh: This also allows modules for in/out faults
Asir: There is new component bindingfaultreference and
bindingmessagereference. They are not symmetric. I like the
new proposed component. Can we make them similar?
Roberto: I suggest we should fix binding message reference component.
Asir: The proposal is tighter. Pseudo schema in Part3 does not
include F&P and contradicts Part 1.
NEW ISSUE: The Part 3 pseudo schema is not consistent with Part 1 as it
does not show where F&P can appear
Roberto: We should not drop bindingfault as the structure will no
longer be aligned
JMarsh: LC55 is two issues (1) why is there parallelism ? (2) Does
parallelism allow you to incorporate soap modules?
Asir: Proposal remove binding fault component
KLiu: Qnames in the proposal? What do they refer?
Roberto: QName of fault.
Amendement: It refers to the interface fault
Asir: We need to update the Feature composition model for the new
component.
Asir: My understanding that QName refers to the fault reference not
the interface fault
Roberto: We only have a name on the interface fault. The name is only
chosen via reference to the named component, which is
interface fault
Asir: Agrees with Roberto's explanation
There are three amendements to the proposal:
a) Bring Message Reference Component into line with Roberto's proposal.
b) Fix feature and property composition models to accomodate the new
component.
c) Clarify that QNames refer to interface fault.
RESOLUTION: Roberto's proposal + amendments accepted. CLOSE 55, 66, 61d
------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Issue LC50: Message Exchange Patterns -- p2c and/or p2e [.1]
- Discussion with XMLP WG [.2]
- Awaiting DBooth action
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC50
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0025.html
JMarsh: Mini-TF?
DBooth: I think we can wrap up the issue before we need to activate a
TF. The meaning of "node" is related.
JMarsh: For an in-out MEP with an extension with WS-Addressing, do I
need to change the mep where the reply goes to someone else?
Amy: A MEP with a different replyto, you need another MEP
Glen: This is tricky esp when you are going to generate a stub
from WSDL.
Task force to handle this issue: DBooth, Amy, Umit, Roberto, Glen
TF: +Paul
<Marsh> TF for MEP: + JJM or Youenn (right?)
<kliu> I would like to join the TF too
<scribe> TF for MEP: +Kevin
------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Issue LC76c: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (Part 2) (c) [.1]
- Hugo and Amy talk at [.2, .3]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC76c
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0026.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0027.html
Amy: Hugo's email suggests that binding can override the propagation
rules. This is not a good thing. In general, all the
propogation rules say that there is a particular direction and
place. There is no absolute guarantee in the real world of
course
JMarsh: If I am using a service that logs the faults then I should not
advertise a MEP that sends a fault back?
Amy: Most of what we need is a clarification. If you need a
different propogation rule, specify a different mep
ACTION: Amy to clarify the propagation rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Issue LC74e: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (e) [.1]
- Awaiting Roberto's further action
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC74e
<Roberto>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0044.html
JMarsh: Is there anything we can do before we decide about backing out
the XML 1.1 support?
Roberto: Not clear whether these all his issues or whether there are
more I18n...
JMarsh: The concerns will go away if we remove XML 1.1 support
JMarsh: I will get 2 of these task forces going.
Meeting ends
Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 17:11:41 UTC