- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:30:44 -0700
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I just posted a proposal for lc54. Can we add to the agenda for
Thursday?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:52 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Agenda, 21-22 April 2005 WS Desc FTF, Mountain View
>
>
> Logistics [1] and dial-in details [2]
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/Logistics-2005-04-21.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Apr/0023.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thursday 21 April
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 08:00 Check-in and vehicle registration
>
> 09:00 Opening formalities
> a. Introductions & logistics
> b. Assign scribes:
> Youenn Fablet, Umit Yalcinalp, Jean-Jacques Moreau,
> Rebecca Bergersen, Anish Karmarkar, Jeff Mischkinsky,
> Charlton Barreto, Arthur Ryman, Asir Vedamuthu, Amy Lewis
> c. Action Item [3] Review:
> ?* 2004-11-09: DaveO will recast the @compatibleWith proposal
> using an extension namespace. (LC54),
> due 2005-04-13.
> ?* 2004-11-10: Glen will post an e-mail describing the
compromise
> proposal on formal objections, due 2005-04-11.
> ?* 2004-11-10: Sanjiva will write up this proposal and email it
> to the list as a response to the objection,
> due 2005-04-20.
> ?* 2004-11-11: Anish to propose additions to the test suite for
> the purpose of interoperability testing,
> due 2005-04-13.
> ?* 2004-12-03: Glen and Asir to help craft the specfic text for
> the editors (LC18), due 2005-04-13.
> ?* 2005-03-10: Bijan will look at item Editors to move App C to
> RDF Mapping spec to see if it is still relavant,
> due 2005-04-13.
> ?* 2005-03-24: Roberto to draft proposal to split HTTP binding
> into 3 bindings, due 2005-04-20.
> ?* 2005-03-31: Paul to raise issue for extensibility/versioning
> for wsdl using schema 1.0, due 2005-04-13.
> ? 2005-03-31: Marsh to take on (or recommend closing) Bijan's
AI
> to produce a component/property table via XSLT,
> due 2005-04-28.
> ?* 2005-03-31: Kevin to fix editorial POST/GET and safety
edits,
> due 2005-04-13.
> DONE 2005-04-14: Marsh to put RDF mapping on the agenda for next
> week, due 2005-04-15.
> ?* 2005-04-14: Arthur to evaluate text from Amy on
> schemaLocation, due 2005-04-21.
> ?* 2005-04-14: DaveO to summarize LC77a options, due
2005-04-21.
> ?* 2005-04-14: Arthur to present a new proposal for LC99,
> due 2005-04-21.
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
>
> 09:30 Primer [4] next steps
>
> [4]
>
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.ht
> ml
>
> 09:45 WSDL Schedule
> - Dependency from WS-Addressing
> - Dependency from WS-Chor
> - Repub to sync with Primer?
> - Raise issue on namespace document (RDDL)? [5]
>
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0086.html
>
> 10:00 RDF Mapping update (if applicable)
>
> 10:05 Common schema structures [6] (PaulD)
>
> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0025.html
>
> 10:15 Media Type Description Note
> - Issues [7]
> - Larry's response to Issue 268 [8]
> - Joe Fialli has three comments [9]
> - I18N re-review [10]
> - Pub plan?
>
> [7] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#detailList
> [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0063.html
> [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Mar/0017.html
> [10]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2005Mar/0015.html
>
> 10:40 Break
>
> 11:00 Issue LC74a: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (a) [11]
> - URI vs. IRI
> - Proposal [12]
> - xs:anyURI issue? (Asir) [13]
> - Amended proposal (Jonathan) [14]
>
> [11] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC74a
> [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0044.html
> [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0054.html
> [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0057.html
>
> 11:15 RPC issues
> - Issue LC75g: RPC should allow element wildcards [15]
> + Proposal (Roberto) [16]
> - Issue LC75f: RPC Allow extension attributes on RPC local element
> children [17]
> - Issue LC118: New Issue RPC Style (and proposed fix) [18]
>
> [15] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75g
> [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0038.html
> [17] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75f
> [18] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC118
>
> 12:00 Lunch
>
> 13:00 Import issues
> - Issue LC120: Contradictions regarding transitivity of
> wsdl:import [19]
> + Thread [20]
> - Issue LC89m: Clarify "directly include" [21]
> - Issue LC96: wsdl:import semantics is different from xs:import
[22]
> - Arthur's import test cases [23]
> - Issue LC74: Idle question [24]
> - Issue LC75w: Allow non-dereferencable includes [25]
> - Issue LC116: Is schemaLocation Required When Importing
> Inline Schemas? [26]
> - Issue LC59d: Clarify wsdlLocation [27]
>
> [19] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC120
> [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0059.html
> [21] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89m
> [22] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC96
> [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Apr/0028.html
> [24] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC74
> [25] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75w
> [26] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC116
> [27] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC59d
>
> 15:00 Break
>
> 15:20 Component issues
> - Issue LC99: Message Reference Component is Underspecified [28]
> + Proposal (Arthur) [29]
> - Issue LC80: Extension Components are not Described [30]
> + Proposal (Arthur) [31]
> - Issue LC59e: Clarify serialization [32]
> - Issue LC75m: Inconsistent value for {operation reference} [33]
> - Issue LC89f: Strengthen conformance re: syntax [34]
>
> [28] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC99
> [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0115.html
> [30] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC80
> [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0056.html
> [32] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC59e
> [33] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75m
> [34] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89f
>
> 17:30 Adjourn
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Friday 22 April
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 09:00 Issue LC54: WSDL Last Call issue [40]
> - Awaiting DaveO's further action to cast @compatibleWith as an
> extension
>
> [40] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC54
>
> 09:30 HTTP
> - Issue LC77a: Namespaced elements and urlformencoded [41]
> + "Serialization as 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded' does
> not ... explain how namespaced elements are to be serialized."
> + Option 1: Status quo (broken?) (DaveO) [42]
> + Option 2: Ignore namespace prefix (DaveO) [42]
> + Option 3: Serialize QName (DaveO) [42]
> + Option 4: Disallow qualified elements (Asir) [43]
> + Option 5: Serialize namespace names (Hugo) [44]
> + Other options from DaveO (TBD)
> - Issue LC110: WSDL 2.0 Part3, Sec. 3.4 [45]
>
> [41] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC77a
> [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0005.html
> [43] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0032.html
> [44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0050.html
> [45] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC110
>
> 10:30 Break
>
> 10:50 MEP issues
> - Issue LC76a: MEPs should support addressing mechanism [46]
> - Issue LC76b: Define "propogate" [47]
> - Issue LC79: Make sure in-only mep is supported in wsdl
> soap12 binding [48]
> - Issue LC102: What is the SOAP MEP for In-only [49]
> - Issue LC114: In-Multi-Out MEP [was "WSDL 2.0 specification"]
[50]
>
> [46] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76a
> [47] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76b
> [48] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC79
> [49] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC102
> [50] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC114
>
> 12:00 Lunch
>
> 13:00 F&P issues
> - Issue LC59f: Support compositors [51]
> - Issue LC89d: Disabling a feature on a specific operation [52]
> - Issue LC89e: Properties are runtime and shouldn't be in WSDL
[53]
>
> [51] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC59f
> [52] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89d
> [53] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89e
>
> 15:00 Break
>
> 15:20 Schema-related issues
> - Issue LC62a: issues with wsdl:endpoint@address (a) [54]
> - Issue LC89a: Clarify schema validity conformance requirement
[55]
> - Issue LC89h: Use XML Schema, not pseudo-schema [56]
> - Issue LC100: The WSDL 2.0 XSD for Root Element is Too Loose [57]
> - Issue LC117: Problem with Service References:
elementFormDefault=
> "qualified" prevents restriction [58]
>
> [54] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC62a
> [55] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89a
> [56] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89h
> [57] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC100
> [58] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC117
>
> 16:30 Quick survey of remaining issues [59]
> - Issue LC52c: Last call review comments (c)
> - Issue LC61c: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (c)
> - Issue LC62b: issues with wsdl:endpoint@address (b)
> - Issue LC64: URI References for Schema Components
> - Issue LC71: default interface/operation/@pattern
> - Issue LC72: Faults that are not described in WSDL?
> - Issue LC74b: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (b)
> - Issue LC74c: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (c)
> - Issue LC75c: Remove {safety} property
> - Issue LC75d: Require explicit type for each input/output?
> - Issue LC75j: {safety} has a default, @safety doesn't
> - Issue LC75o: Remove "if any" from Table 2-13
> - Issue LC75p: Make address a binding-specific extension
> - Issue LC75x: Complete or remove App D
> - Issue LC82: Operation Name Mapping Requirement Bug
> - Issue LC84c: Operation Name Mapping Requirement doesn't go
> far enough
> - Issue LC89j: Use namespaces to avoid local-name conflicts
> - Issue LC90: XML Schema comment on WSDL 2.0
> - Issue LC98: {soap mep} property and SOAP 1.1 Binding
> - Issue LC101: message level binding?
>
> [59]
>
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html?view=normal&exper
> t=1&editorial=1&stateAgreed=1&stateDeclined=1&stateSubsumed=1
>
> 17:30 Adjourn
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2005 00:33:59 UTC