W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2004

Minutes, 18 November 2004 WS Description telcon

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:11:05 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A505B3D60C@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Minutes, Web Service Description WG 
18 November 2004 telcon

 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

 Hugo Haas              W3C
 Sanjiva Weerawarana    IBM
 Prasad Yendluri        webMethods, Inc.


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 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) 
PENDING   2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith 
                      proposal using an extension namespace. 
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



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
  - 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
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

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC54


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

<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 
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 
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 
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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:45 UTC