- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:49:54 -0700
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Web Services Description F2F
Thursday 16 Sep 2004
See also: IRC log [http://www.w3.org/2004/09/16-ws-desc-irc
Attendees:
David Booth W3C
Helen Chen Agfa-Gevaert N. V.
Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems
Glen Daniels Sonic Software
Paul Downey British Telecommunications
Hugo Haas W3C
Hao He Thomsona
Tom Jordahl Macromedia
Anish Karmarkar Oracle
Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft)
David Orchard BEA Systems
Bijan Parsia University of Maryland MIND Lab
Arthur Ryman IBM
Phone:
Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software
Youenn Fablet Canon
Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon
Regrets:
Amelia Lewis TIBCO
Asir Vedamuthu webMethods
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
-------------------------------------------------------
Thursday 16 September
-------------------------------------------------------
[dbooth: Scribe: PaulD]
09:00 Primer suggestions from Hao
Hao: How dynamic is the WSDL, can F&Ps be used to describe
current status of the service etc? Is WSDL only for use
before deployment time?
Jonathan: It's just meta-data
Hao: Do we need to talk about use of WSDL in discovery?
Glen: No, though we do talk about comparing WSDL contracts useful
in discovery.
Hao: Wonders where policies which are dynamic will be published.
Paul: Suggests Hao looks into the C&C workshop will cover these
very issues.
[GlenD: Constraints and capabilities workshop -
http://www.w3.org/2004/06/ws-cc-cfp.html]
Hao: Given an endpoint, how do i find the WSDL describing that
endpoint?
[Rehash of the whole "what lives at the end of a namespace URI"
discussion.]
-------------------------------------------------------
09:30 Topic: RDF
[hugo:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Sep/att-0034/2004-Se
pt.pdf]
Slide 2 URIs
Roberto: If the mapping is normative on the component model will this
add requirements to the processor.
Bijan: No, it's a separate module which could be implemented
Independently.
Jonathan: Component URIs could have other uses
[tomj:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Sep/0034.html
for Bijan's slides]
Roberto: Doesn't the use of a frag-id + wsdl media type force this on
all conformant processors?
Bijan: You can write a processor that doesn't implement or use
frag-ids,
it's implementation dependent.
Discussion of packaging of work in Part 1 or as a separate document
Jonathan: Proposal is not to move component designators but make them
normative due to dependency upon media type registration
[Roberto: And move them nearer to appendix A (media type registration)]
Arthur: Fragment syntax should be normative and part of spec. Use of
component designators by RDF should be kept separate
Jonathan: Outlines reordering of part 1 on the screen: frag-id part
becomes
normative allows frag-id and media type to reference each
other
RESOLUTION: Move App C to RDF Mapping spec, except the frag-id which
will
move within media-type reg appendix.
ACTION: Editors to move App C to RDF Mapping spec, except the frag-id
which will move within media-type reg appendix.
Bijan: Component type and property URIs
Bijan: When constructing URIs will use camelCase for consistency
with
Spec.
RESOLUTION: Camel case is OK for RDF mapping constructed URIs.
Bijan: Definitions, targetNamespace
Arthur: Can we change top level element from 'definitions' to
'description'
[The crowd goes wild at Arthur's excellent suggestion, but pushes it on
the stack for now.]
Discussion of relationship between component designators and the
targetNamespace
Roberto: We could get rid of the top level component, Schema doesn't
have
One.
Bijan: Top level component does provide some scoping which is useful
to
some RDF applications
Glen: Same WSDL document could be at many different locations,
better
choice to have the top level URI inside the document. Why do
we
want the definitions component at all?
Arthur: Provides scope: what is the set of components i'm talking
about?
Glen: If you're just including a bag of other components possibly
from elsewhere, why would identifying the container itself be
useful?
Arthur: Set of components likely to be unique for each URL, it's
accidental if two separate documents end up having the same
set of components.
Bijan: Can you have extensions to the top level definitions?
Roberto: Yes, e.g. choreography
Jonathan: No change to the spec!
Bijan: Now has better understanding of status quo and has no need
for top level namespace in his mapping
Jonathan: targetNamespace could be moved down into "XML Representation"
to reduce its preceived importance
Paragraph 6-9 of section 2.1.1 moved into 2.1.2 which talks about the
syntax
[dbooth: Also note that this sentence is wrong: "The components
directly
defined within a single Definitions component are said to
belong
to the same target namespace."]
ACTION: Editors to fix paragraph 6-9 of section 2.1.1 moved into
2.1.2
which talks about the syntax.
ACTION: Arthur to write up his proposal to rename 'defintions' to
'description'.
Jonathan: let's take a break before getting into this ..
10:30 Break ----------------------------------------
11:00 RDF questions (cont.)
Bijan: {message exchange pattern}
[camelCase seems OK with everyone.]
Bijan: MEP - is it a URI or 'individual'?
Bijan: Wants to deviate from the spec by using an as a string value
rather than a URI.
Tom: Is the RDF mapping both ways?
Bijan: No round-tripping, in particular there is loss of imports.
Use of mapping is not as a model, but for 'saying more
specific things'.
[Seems OK with everyone.]
Bijan: Interlude
Bijan: RDF Extension
Bijan: Wants a rdf:RDF property everywhere there is an extensibility
Point.
[Seems OK - we have an open content model, this is allowed.]
Jonathan: Progress on RDF spec?
Bijan: Should have something in the next couple of weeks.
-------------------------------------------------------
11:30 Administrative items
Jonathan: Meeting in January - possibly Sri Lanka or Sydney?
Jonathan: Topics will include moving to CR in particular testing, the
test suite and implementations
Jonathan: Tech plenary end of Feb/March in Boston
[No decision, we'll see where, and whether we even need, a Jan meeting.]
Paul: Any progress on IP for test suite contributions
Hugo: Team has been working on this issue - expect something posted
to the AC list soon. Anticipate that test cases will be
published under the document license
[hugo: Document license:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231]
[hugo: Software license:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231]
Jonathan: You are free to contribute using these licenses regardless of
a W3C policy for a test suite.
Jonathan: How do we expect a bake off to work - expect to offer an
open invitation. Should be publishing expected test cases
and bake off scenarios by November.
Glen: Need to have different classes of tests. Suggests getting
involvement of Bob Cunnings of SOAPBuilders and WhiteMesa in
the planning
ACTION: Glen to contact Bob Cunnings regarding planning for CR
bake-offs.
[hugo:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Sep/0014
.html
-------------------------------------------------------
11:45 Last Call issues [9]
- (In issues list order, with Asir's last if possible)
[9] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/
Topic: LC32
[hugo: s/32/31/
[tomj: I believe we need at least the statement that an XML 1.0 WSDL
must validate with our schema for conformance
can our schema for XML 1.0 serialisation also be applied to an XML 1.1
serialisation?
ACTION: editors to remove text regarding schema validity from section
1.2 and add text to describe schema is for the conformance of XML 1.0
serialisation and the intent is it may be applied to other future
serialisations such as XML 1.1
discussion: description of contents of properties throughout part 1 uses
schema 1.0 types. this could preculde moving to XML 1.1 serialisations
if types such as xs:string change
Paul: propose we use our own types wsdl:string etc and avoid using
schema language when describing allowed property values
Roberto: thinks infoset should resolve this issue
Roberto: alternative proposal, rename these sections as XML 1.0 specific
[Roberto: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#infoitem.attribute
ACTION: editors to make clear that mapping to XML is 1.0 specific
Jonathan: break for lunch
12:00 Lunch ----------------------------------------
Scribe: Tom Jordahl
13:00 Last Call issues (cont.)
-------------------------------------------------------
Issue LC34a: Completing Part 1 Appendix C: URI References for WSDL
constructs
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC34a
Hugo: Appendix C is very useful. In lots of places we note that
things cannot be referred to by QNames, so we should point
down to Appendix C. For instance in section 2.3.1 we could
add a sentence at the end of the paragraph that talk about
QNames
Jonathan: Proposal - in places where we talk about how to access
elements
which can't be accessed by QName, add text pointing to
Appendix C.
We should pull the section that we moved out of C (C.1) and in
to
the RDF (earlier today) and put it back.
Roberto: Objects to that. Likes it in RDF spec
Bijan: I don't care if we move it back
Hugo: Supports Jonathans proposals
Consensus - Add links part of Jonathans proposal.
Jonathan: where do those links point?
Hugo: Its OK to point to the places where we moved Appendix C in
the morning.
RESOLUTION: Add links to sections of specification where we note that
QName is insufficient to identify a component.
ACTION: Editors to add links to component designators to sections
Where we note QName is insufficient.
-------------------------------------------------------
Issue LC34b: Completing Part 1 Appendix C: URI References for WSDL
constructs
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC34b
Proposal: As stated in the issue PLUS feature and property additions
Arthur: Properties could have the same path and lead to 2 different
places.
Discussion about how the fragment identifiers work - How/if we can apply
them to features and properties
Arthur: Maybe we should assign a task to the author of Appendix C to
do
features and properties?
Discussion on how adding a feature/property syntax in existing selectors
might work
Proposal: Accept resolution in issue, Add action to do F&P
Arthur: - but scrub the syntax to be more concise
Arthur: Volunteers to scrub syntax to make sure everything makes
sense
RESOLUTION: Close issue 34b - accept proposal in general, include F&P
additions too
ACTION: Arthur will scrub the proposed syntax and create Features
and
properties syntax.
Discussion about features and if they have to have a unique URI
Glen: two F/P with the same URI in a scope should be an error.
<...>
<feature uri="uri1" />
<feature uri="uri1" />
</...>
Proposal: Specify that the above is an error
Jonathan: This will help the fragment ids work correctly
ACTION: Editors to implement the restriction that feature and
property
URIs must be unique in a scope.
Anish: Do scoping rules cover the case where the same uri is used in
nested scopes?
Glen: Yes, scoping rules apply - the nearest one wins. Raises
possible issue on changing properties to specify that
'nearer'
properties must be 'compatible' with previous specified
values.
Some discussion about why this would be needed and how it would work.
-------------------------------------------------------
Topic: LC34c: Completing Part 1 Appendix C: URI References for WSDL
constructs
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC34c
RESOLUTION: Issue 34c Accept the proposal - change names to match
component
names in table C-1.
ACTION: Arthur to revamp table C-1 with component names
-------------------------------------------------------
Topic: LC34d: Completing Part 1 Appendix C: URI References for WSDL
constructs
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC34d
RESOLUTION: Table will be reworked to be more readable when new
components are added.
ACTION: App C editors to rework table to be more readable when new
components are added.
-------------------------------------------------------
Topic: LC33: Part 3 SOAP Binding: default HTTP method
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC33
[hugo:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#http-suptfeatures]
Tomj: Having trouble understanding what the problem is
Hugo: We are talking about an extension that doesn't have syntax to
change its value. We should remove the default from "default
value of the {http method} property"
RESOLUTION: close issue 33 - Remove default from text in bullet item
"HTTP Method Selection"
ACTION: Editors to remove 'default' from text in bullet item "HTTP
Method
Selection"
-------------------------------------------------------
Topic: LC37: Part 3 3.6.4 Mapping Between HTTP Operation's XML
Representation to Component Properties and default values
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC37
RESOLUTION: Accommodate the method default and input serialization
default in part 3, section 3.6.4
ACTION: Editors to redo Part 3 Section 3.6.4 to accommodate method
and input serialization defaults.
-------------------------------------------------------
Topic: LC38: Part 1: DTD as the schema language for WSDL
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC38
Tomj: Why is this in the spec?
Jonathan: Jacek probably wrote it. Shows our ability to handle other
type systems
Tomj: Not inclined to put a 'real' URI there - lends it weight
where there isn't any
Dbooth: What is the cost? Nothing, why not do it.
Jonathan: We should do something as it is specified with more rigor than
the
example.org URI indicates
Jonathan: Should we remove this?
Roberto: Type system extensibility is a pretty big deal, these examples
really help.
Jonathan: Gives the impression of possible interop, but we really don't
know if it would work
Jonathan: we have the Relax NG, lets drop DTD
[pauld: DTD type system mentioned in this article!
http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/ws/2004/05/19/wsdl2.html]
Hugo: Put real URI there, flag it in CR stage, remove it if nobody
cares
Proposal: Remove appendix D
OR define a real namespace URI
Straw poll.
Option 1 - remove Appendix E.1
Option 2 - Assign a real namespace URI
Option 3 - Leave status quo (example.org namespace)
Option 1 - 0
Option 2 - 8
Option 3 - 2
[jjm: option 3]
RESOLUTION: close issue 38 - Assign a new namespace URI.
ACTION: Hugo to get a URI to use for DTD example in Appendix E.1
-------------------------------------------------------
Topic: LC12: "whttp:location" attribute is missing
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC12
RESOLUTION: close issue 12 - Add whttp:location to section 2.1, the
binding operation element (same place as
whttp:defaultTransferCoding)
ACTION: Editors to add whttp:location to section 2.1, the binding
operation element (same place as whttp:defaultTransferCoding)
-------------------------------------------------------
Topic: LC13: HTTP Operation Component
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC13
Jonathan: Appears to be editorial?
Roberto: Should be HTTP Operation Extension
RESOLUTION: close issue 13 - change use of HTTP Operation Component
ACTION: Editors to change use of HTTP Operation Component to
something
like Binding Operation Component augmented by HTTP
properties.
15:00 Break ----------------------------------------
15:20 Last Call issues (cont.)
-------------------------------------------------------
Topic: LC14: Mapping ref attribute to {fault reference} - Type Mismatch
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC14
Jonathan: Change the mapping that the value is indeed the component.
The mapping should be corrected
RESOLUTION: close issue 14 - Fix the mapping to say the value is the
component.
ACTION: editors fix the places described in issue 14 to say the
value is the component.
-------------------------------------------------------
Topic: LC16: Interface = design of the application
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC16
RESOLUTION: close issue 16 - accept the proposal to remove the
sentence: "Thus, an interface defines the design of
the application."
ACTION: editors to remove the sentence "Thus, an interface defines
the design of the application" in section 2.2.1
-------------------------------------------------------
Topic: LC17: URI Serialization: Order may be Lost
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC17
Jonathan: Schema lists have order
Tomj: How can we fix this so that the URL parameters don't lose
that order?
Arthur: You can get the full query string if you care about order
Jonanthan: Doing nothing seems to be the thing to do, at least till Asir
is present
Tomj: We should specify in the spec that the order of the query
parameters is in the order of the list.
Propose action: Editors to clarify section 3.8.1.2.1 to state that
for
list values, the order of the values in the list are
preserved in the url parameters.
Jonathan: Should the order count for all the other elements?
Tomj: Yes, they should be in document order
Jonathan: Would prefer that the proposed resolution be delayed till we
have the whole solution.
ACTION: Jonathan to record proposed resolution in the issues list
-------------------------------------------------------
Topic: LC18: Relationship between Features and SOAP Modules
skip for now - covered by Glen's mail to someone else, probably
duplicate.
ACTION: Glen to CC Asir on mail to Marc re: SOAP modules and features
16:00 Adjourn
Received on Saturday, 18 September 2004 00:50:27 UTC