See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Hugo
<dorchard> I'll call in for the serialization part of the agenda.
April 7 telcon minutes approved
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 2.4.1.1 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
practice.
? [.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
Jonathan: I added LC119 & LC120
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
Agreement to do it next week at the F2F
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]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0115.html
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]
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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0056.html
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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0049.html
Proposal: close LC69b with no action
RESOLUTION: LC69b closed with no action
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0038.html
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