Web Services Description WG

14 Apr 2005


See also: IRC log


Charlton Barreto, webMethods
David Booth, W3C
Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici, Sun Microsystems
Ugo Corda, SeeBeyond
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
Youenn Fablet, Canon
Hugo Haas, W3C
Tom Jordahl, Macromedia
Anish Karmarkar, Oracle
Jacek Kopecky, DERI Innsbruck at the Leopold-Franzens-Universitšt Innsbruck, Austria
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
Dale Moberg, Cyclone Commerce
Jean-Jacques Moreau, Canon
David Orchard, BEA Systems
Tony Rogers, Computer Associates
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Adi Sakala, IONA Technologies
Asir Vedamuthu, webMethods
Sanjiva Weerawarana, IBM
Umit Yalcinalp, SAP
Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
Kevin Canyang Liu, SAP
Bijan Parsia, University of Maryland MIND Lab




<scribe> Scribe: Hugo

<dorchard> I'll call in for the serialization part of the agenda.

Approval of minutes

April 7 telcon minutes approved

Review of Action items

Jonathan: A lot of action items were due today, and unfortunately, quite a few weren't done

[ Chair calling names of people not on the call ]

Review of Action items [.1].
?*        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. 
DUE 4/20  2004-11-10: Sanjiva will write up this proposal and email it 
                      to the list as a response to the objection, 
                      due ??.
?*        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.
DONE      2005-02-17: Jacekk to help Bijan advance the RDF mapping work,
                      due ??. 

scribe: Jacek, how about the RDF mapping?

Jacek: I think that this action item can be retired

<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to put RDF mapping on the agenda for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

Jonathan: I'll ask Bijan for a status update next week

?*        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.
DONE      2005-03-10: Marsh to troll minutes looking for more CR 
                      criteria, due 2005-04-13. 
RETIRED   2005-03-24: DaveO to query MS whether they would support part
                      of the HTTP binding if divided, due 2005-04-13. 

Jonathan: Microsoft is not planning on support the HTTP binding in Indigo (as a response to "DaveO to query MS whether they would support part of the HTTP binding if divided, due 2005-04-13.")

[ Chair continues going through AIs ]

DUE 4/20  2005-03-24: Roberto to draft proposal to split HTTP binding 
                      into 3 bindings, due 2005-04-13. 
?*        2005-03-31: Paul to raise issue for extensibility/versioning 
                      for wsdl using schema 1.0, due 2005-04-13. 
DUE 4/28  2005-03-31: Marsh to take on (or recommend closing) Bijan's AI
                      to produce a component/property table via XSLT, 
                      due 2005-04-13.
DONE [.6] 2005-03-31: Hugo to propose solution for multipart/related
                      69b, due 2005-04-13. 
DONE      2005-03-31: Marsh to look into Roberto's 75g proposal, 
                      due 2005-04-13. 
DONE [.8] 2005-03-31: Marsh to see about Berlin logistics, 
                      due 2005-04-07.
?*        2005-03-31: Kevin to fix editorial POST/GET and safety edits,
                      due 2005-04-13. 
DONE      2005-03-31: Amy to propose text for schemaLocation that Arthur
                      will evaluate, due 2005-04-07. 

<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to evaluate text from Amy on schemaLocation; due 2005-04-21 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]

DONE      2005-03-31: Arthur produces test cases for schemaLocation-less
                      imports, due 2005-04-07. 
DONE [.3] 2005-03-31: Arthur to propose LC80 solution, due 2005-04-13.
RETIRED   2005-04-01: PaulD to make a proposal on the packaging of the
                      schema examples, due 2005-04-13. 
DONE [.4] 2005-04-01: Marsh to look at adjustments to the Memorial Day 
                      meeting schedule, due 2005-04-13. 

Jonathan: w.r.t. the Berlin F2F, we're not meeting on the Monday anymore
... that should be helping people to get there in time

DONE [.5] 2005-04-01: Hugo to push forward discussion of daveo's 
                      proposal option #3 for LC77a, due 2005-04-08.

Outstanding editorial work:
HOLD      2004-09-16: Editors to move App C to RDF Mapping spec, 
                      except the frag-id which will move 
                      within media-type reg appendix.
?         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.
?         2004-11-10: Editor remove ambiguity if it exists
?         2005-01-19: Part 1 Editors to call out the difference 
                      between WSDL 1.1 and 2.0 in respect to 
                      single interface per service, and 
                      indicate alternatives
?         2005-01-19: Part 1 Editors to rewrite ONMR as Best 
? [.7]    2005-03-10: Editors to check URI and schema references in 
                      Part 1 

[.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/2005Apr/0056.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Apr/0020.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0050.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0049.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0036.html
[.8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2005Apr/0013.html


Jonathan: BTW, HP has resigned from the WG

Jonathan: I sent out a draft agenda
... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0063.html

<DaveO> could we move the HTTP issues earlier? I have a 2pm flight on Friday and we usually slip the schedule..

Jonathan: I'm going to try to limit discussion on issues to say 30 minutes
... if we can't reach a conclusion, I'll send it back to the list

Last Call Issues

Jonathan: I added LC119 & LC120

Editorial issue resolutions

WG agrees to close issues listed in the agenda

WG agrees to refer issues listed in the agenda to the editors

Jonathan: Arthur, any comments about LC113?

Arthur: I think that Glen has to work on this

Jonathan: is Arthur's solution OK with the WG?

Asir: is my suggestion in there?

Arthur: yes

RESOLUTION: LC113's resolution accepted

Media Type Description issues

Agreement to do it next week at the F2F

Issue LC77a: Namespaced elements and urlformencoded

Jonathan: we have 5 proposals on the table (see agenda)

Tom: I like the idea of ignoring the namespace prefix, but I'm worried about the risks
... otherwise, disallowing them seems good to me

DaveO: not allowing ns's is going to prevent a large number of use cases

Jonathan: the issues come up when you're mixing ns's

Asir: status quo is not broken, but needs clarification
... we can live with 2 or 4

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say disallowing is safer than ignoring

David: I'm very concerned about option 2, it can bring undetected errors

Hugo: I think we should do it well or not at all, i.e. 5 or 4

Arthur I like option 5

<uyalcina> +1 to Hugo

<Zakim> JacekK, you wanted to note how option 4 is unnecessary

JacekK: you said that we only allow local elements
... it makes option 4 unnecessary

Asir: local elements can have a namespace

JacekK: yes, but they're all the same

Asir: oh, you're right
... but you may be able to derive types, in which case you're not right anymore

JacekK: then I think that we should limit to only one namespace then

<Zakim> DaveO, you wanted to respond to the "guarantee" issue

Jonathan: it's kind of a variation on option 4

DaveO: I didn't get Hugo's comments about guaranties

Hugo: schema doesn't know about prefixes at the abstract level

DaveO: in the simple scenario, you use the schema prefixes from the serialization of an instance

Arthur: it's unworkable

DaveO: I like option 5 to all other options
... however, I'd like to keep it as simple as possible

Roberto: 5 is fine but too complex

<Zakim> Marsh, you wanted to propose 2a, (2) + require unique localNames

Roberto: 3 is nice from the matter

<Marsh> 2b: (2) + single namespace?

Roberto: I'd like to propose (2) + require unique localNames

Umit: does that restrict it to a single ns?

<DaveO> local names must be unique, kind of like "ID" values..

Roberto: no, you can have bar:foo and foo:bar serialized as foo and bar

<DaveO> <bar:foo><any> means <any> can't be <*:foo>

<Marsh> 2c: (2) + require names to be uniquely mappable to QNames (unique names unless order can disambiguate)

Dave: that would disallow wildcards

Roberto: wildcards are bad anyway

Jonathan: presents 2c

<Zakim> asir, you wanted to introduce something related

Asir: we serialize the HTTP headers by ignoring the namespaces
... if we want to keep it consistant, then we should go with option 2

Umit: we didn't know what we were doing

Asir: I think we had a similar discussion

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say Uniqueness can have subtleties: Uniqueness within what context? E.g., if schema SA allows B as child of A, but schema SB does not permit B as child of A.

<DaveO> is there combination of #2 and #5, where the client can send the prefix OR the namespace name?

Arthur: we would need a computable restriction in any case for uniqueness checking

David: I agree, uniqueness can be tricky
... but the direction is reasonable

Jonathan: it seems that we have people unhappy with a lot of our options
... we're looking at variations of option 2, option 5 is still on the table

Dave: I'd like to summarize the proposals and we could talk about it next week

<scribe> ACTION: DaveO to summarize LC77a options; due date 2005-04-21 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]

Issue LC99: Message Reference Component is Underspecified


Arthur: I think it should be required in the component model
... then there's the schema: either required or sensible default

Roberto: the {message content model} only makes sense if you're using an XML-based data model

Jonathan: so you're arguing that we just need a clarification

Arthur: so I think that the spec should say what the meaning of empty is: other

Tom: I think that empty should be equivalent to #none

<dbooth> Roberto, so you are saying that empty == unspecified?

Jonathan: if it's missing, it means that it's using a different type system

Arthur: I'd like to withdraw my proposal and take Roberto's suggestion as an AI

<charlton> +1 to empty == different type system

DavidB: so empty is unspecified

Arthur: we should add a #other value; we're overloading the meaning of empty here

<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to present a new proposal for LC99; due 2005-04-21 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]

Issue LC74a: I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial)

Jonathan: Asir, can you clarify anyUri's issues with IRI?

Asir: there some differences between 2396 and 3896
... it's possible that Schema will issue an erratum for Schema 1.0
... or will do it for 1.1

Jonathan: can we be ignorant?

Asir: I think so; we could go to the XML CG
... I've seen a proposal from XML Core about this

Jonathan: we should be able to make a decision then
... I had some comments about where IRIs are correct
... let's finish that one up at the F2F
... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0057.html

Issue LC80: Extension Components are not Described


Jonathan: what does this give us?

Arthur: extensions are more composable with each other
... also, all the extensions that we described follow this pattern
... so it seems general enough

<Tomj> +1 on making the language uniform

Hugo: what's the impact on Part 2?

Arthur: be more explicit on the types of extension components
... specify where they're extensible

Jonathan: let's decide on this next week

Issue LC69b: XForms comments on (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 3: Bindings


Proposal: close LC69b with no action

RESOLUTION: LC69b closed with no action

Issue LC75g: RPC should allow element wildcards


Roberto: I want to allow element wildcard on input only

Jonathan: anybody objecting?

Asir: should we allow it on output too?

Roberto: this proposal only deals with input

Tom: this will make a lot of work for the implements

Jonathan: then please bring the issue up

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Arthur to evaluate text from Amy on schemaLocation; due 2005-04-21 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Arthur to present a new proposal for LC99; due 2005-04-21 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: DaveO to summarize LC77a options; due date 2005-04-21 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Marsh to put RDF mapping on the agenda for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: WG to despair over the RDF mapping WG. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/14-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.122 (CVS log)
$Date: 2005/04/14 16:32:42 $