See also: IRC log
[Note chair's notes here got eaten, some due dates may be recreated incorrectly. Chair will forgo the usual punishment for slipping AIs in this case :-).]
DONE [.5] 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.
DROPPED 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.
?* 2005-03-31: Marsh to take on (or recommend closing) Bijan's AI
to produce a component/property table via XSLT,
due 2005-04-28.
Waiting addition of property/component markup. Now due 2005-05-28.
<scribe> SCRIBE: Allen
<scribe> ACTION: Editors to introduce specialized markup for components and properties [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/28-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
DONE [.6] 2005-03-31: Kevin to fix editorial POST/GET and safety edits,
due 2005-04-13.
DUE? 2005-04-21: Arthur to review primer sec 4.1 for correctness,
due ?.
DUE? 2005-04-21: Kevin to add inheritance example to primer sec 5,
due ?.
Due 2005-05-05.
DUE? 2005-04-21: Kevin to do outbound interface example in primer,
due ?.
Due 2005-05-05.
DONE [.6] 2005-04-21: kliu will send comment (Section 6.4) to list as
editorial issue, due ?.
DUE? 2005-04-21: Hugo to check (Section 6.6) for correctness,
due ?.
DUE? 2005-04-21: GlenD to check scoping (Section 7.2) references,
due ?.
DONE [.6] 2005-04-21: kliu to note issue (Section 7.9), due ?.
DUE? 2005-04-21: Hugo fix type thing and look at rest for
consistency in DaveO's examples at
.../wsdl20-primer.html#reservationDetails_HTTP and
.../wsdl20-primer.html#reservationList_HTTP_GET,
due ?
DUE? 2005-04-21: Hugo to establish RDDL docs, due ?.
DUE? 2005-04-21: Pauld to craft, publish Common Schema structures
to WG for review for publication as WG Note,
due ?.
Due 2005-05-28.
DUE? 2005-04-21: Hugo to take action to check with Henry if accept
our resolution, due ?.
DUE? 2005-04-21: Hugo to continue to look at IRI style/URI style,
due ?. (LC74a)
DUE? 2005-04-21: Asir to provide modified text of section 4.2 to
editors, due ? (LC120)
Due 2005-05-08.
DUE? 2005-04-21: Tom to provide additional text to section 7,
part 1, wsdlLocation, due ?. (LC59d)
Due 2005-05-02.
DUE? 2005-04-22: Jonathan to ask WS-Addressing to ensure that they
clearly specify overriding of the fault
destination, due ?. (LC76a)
Due 2005-05-02.
DUE? 2005-04-22: Glen to send a response for LC89e, due ?.
DUE? 2005-04-22: Amy to define propogation, due ?. (LC76b)
DONE [.4] 2005-04-22: Hugo to investigate HTTP binding and determine
whether address is optional, due ?. (LC62a)
DONE [.7] 2005-04-22: Marsh to ask WS-A to review primer re: endpoint
references, and to ask them for any advice about
how to describe EPRs to the end of identifying
which interface and/or binding are referenced just
from examining the description, due ?. (LC117)
DUE? 2005-04-22: Umit to write an alternate proposal, due ? (LC117)
Due 2005-05-12.
DUE? 2005-04-22: Amy to provide examples for the advanced section
of the primer. Amy to send them to Kevin and test
materials to Arthur, due ?. (LC61c)
DUE? 2005-04-22: Arthur to investigate the Schema Designators and
come back with a proposal, due ?. (LC64)
Due 2005-05-12.
DUE? 2005-04-22: Amy to investigate a solution, due ? (LC74c)
Outstanding editorial work:
DONE 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.
(subsumed by LC21 resolution?)
? 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.
DONE [.3] 2005-03-10: Editors to check URI and schema references in
Part 1.
DONE 2005-04-21: MTD editors to incorporate Larry's changes.
? 2005-04-22: Editors to add "When you want to describe a
message that sends an endpoint reference, create
an element that restricts wsdl:EndpointType and
specifies a fixed value for the @binding
attribute." (LC117)
? 2005-04-21: Editors Fix the "processor" language in 4.1.1,
(LC75w)
? 2005-04-21: Editors to make sure that inline/embedded schema
used consistently and defined. (LC116)
? 2005-04-21: Part 2 editors to define frag id extensions for
soap:header, http:header, soap:module. (LC80)
[.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/0070.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0160.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0134.html
[.6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0166.html
[.7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Apr/0067.html
<Marsh> ACTION: Marsh to add link to primer to-do list from WG page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/28-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
Jonathan: WS-Addressing would like last call reviews
<Marsh> ACTION: Charlton and Jacek to review WS-A by next Wed. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/28-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Jonathan: register for next
face-to-face
... any objections to publishing SOAP 1.1 note?
Resolved: publish SOAP 1.1 binding note
<scribe> ACTION: Editors LC121, LC122, LC123 fixes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/28-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
Jonathan: LC99, '#' removed at face to face. Editors point out that this is inconsistent
Arthur: value constraint property of property component has '#'
Jonathan: do we make this
consistent?
... doesn't RPC style use this?
... proposals are: remove hash everywhere for component model,
or add hash back in this case and live with element that cannot
be expressed in syntax
Arthur: ok with hash in both places
Roberto: I like the hash in the component
Umit: agrees with Roberto
Jonathan: any objections to adding the hash back in?
Arthur: can make #other the default and allow it in syntax
Tom: +1
Asir: Address attribute has no default
Arthur: address value is URL this is an enumerated value
<pauld> chad, hi
Resolution: LC99, don't drop '#' and allow #other in schema
<Marsh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0160.html
Hugo's proposal: add text to http binding that says that it is an error if http location is not absolute and address is absent
DaveO: maybe base address can be
given and then relative URI added
... no way to connect dynamic base with relative URI in
WSDL
Jonathan: if you understood EPR extension then you wouldn't need the address
Jacek: extension could set address property
Jonathan: extension could override Hugo's statement or set address property
DaveO: may not need an explicit statement. This could fail in the same way as if an incorrect address were given
Arthur: maybe this should be a SHOULD
Umit: should be clarified how we work with WS-Addressing
Jonathan: question is can we
build a component model without an address component and still
use it for http
... any volunteer to write extension using
WS-Addressing?
<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan will draft a proposal on how to use an EPR as a WSDL extension [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/28-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
Jonathan: any voluteer to modify Hugo's proposal?
Arthur: change MUST to SHOULD
Jacek: could change http binding to allow extensibility instead of saying that location is combined with address property
DaveO: very little can be said in WSDL that would enforce that at runtime an address will be set
Jonathan: no need for any new text then
Resolved: LC62b closed with no action
<Arthur> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0095.html
Arthur: components for interface
and binding not consistent
... two choices to be consistent: 1) remove "interface"
everywhere, 2) add interface everywhere
... preference, option 1 for brevity
Jacek: prefer option 2 to remove potential confusion with fault
<Marsh> chad, new poll
<chad> new poll
Tom: prefer option 1, likes the shorter names
<Marsh> chad, question: LC125
<RebeccaB> chad, options?
<Marsh> chad, option 1: Interface, *Fault, *Operation, MessageReference, FaultReference
<Tomj> vote: 1
<Marsh> chad, option 2: Interface, InterfaceFault, InterfaceOperation, *InterfaceMessageReference, *InterfaceFaultReference
<JacekK> vote: 2
<KevinL> vote: 1
vote: 2
<Arthur> vote: 1
<TonyR> vote: 2
<youenn> vote: 1
<RebeccaB> vote: 2
<Marsh> chad: option 0: status quo
<Arthur> vote: 1, 2
<asir> vote: 2
<RebeccaB> vote: 2
<KevinL> vote: 0, 1
<pauld> vote: 2, 1, whatever
<Roberto> vote:2
<pauld> vote: 2, 1
<uyalcina> vote: 1
<TonyR> vote: 2, 1, 0
<youenn> vote: 1,2
<pauld> chad: tonyBlair
<pauld> vote: 2, 1
<Marsh> chad: charlton: 2
<Roberto> chad: berlusconi
<Marsh> chad, count
<chad> Question: LC125
<chad> Option 0: status quo (1)
<chad> Option 1: Interface, *Fault, *Operation, MessageReference, FaultReference (4)
<chad> Option 2: Interface, InterfaceFault, InterfaceOperation, *InterfaceMessageReference, *InterfaceFaultReference (8)
<chad> 13 voters: Allen (2) , Arthur (1, 2) , asir (2) , charlton (2) , JacekK (2) , KevinL (0, 1) , pauld (2, 1) , RebeccaB (2) , Roberto (2) , Tomj (1) , TonyR (2, 1, 0) , uyalcina (1) , youenn (1, 2)
<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
<chad> Candidate 2 is elected.
<chad> Winner is option 2 - Interface, InterfaceFault, InterfaceOperation, *InterfaceMessageReference, *InterfaceFaultReference
<alewis> chad, details?
RESOLUTION: LC125 closed with Arthur's option 2 change, make components consistent by using 'interface' in each component name for interface components.
Postponed till Sanjiva is present.
Arthur: why normalize element names?
Jonathan: its a QName
... probably will close with no action but we need to respond
to comment
... we may need a note that says there may be false negatives
if QNames are not normallized
<uyalcina> +1 to JM
Jonathan: since there are no volunteers propose to close with no action
Resolved: LC74b closed with no action
Arthur: if set to true you can use http get and cache result
Jonathan: TAG wants this so we shouldn't remove it
<Arthur> +q
Roberto: should move this to an extension
<uyalcina> +1 to Roberto
DaveO: disputes that TAG mandated doing it this way
Umit: Happy DaveO clarified this. Justifies putting this in an extension.
DaveO: opposed to putting this in an extension. Better ways have been proposed.
Arthur: mistake putting this in a binding. It should be part of the abstract description. So should be an interface extension, if an extension.
Tom: wasn't in favor of putting this in spec, would be in favor of removing it.
Roberto: programmer's view, can
put annotations in their code, but any side effect makes it
unsafe
... need to consider what we want in core spec. Should only be
core concepts. Other things should be in other parts of spec.
Safety should be moved out of core spec.
<asir> +1 to Roberto, lets shrink Part 1
<Arthur> +1
PaulD: Get is very important to the web and key to what we are doing. If we put this in core people will build services differently.
<Arthur> to paul, that is
<Marsh> Chad, question: Remove {safety}?
<Marsh> Chad, option 0: status quo
<Marsh> Chad, option 1: remove it
<Marsh> Chad, option 2: move it to an extension (part 2)
Umit: presence of the TAG caused
members to not speak out against this.
... safety less enforcable than RPC style which is not in part
1
<asir> vote: 1, 2
<JacekK> vote: 0, 2
<pauld> vote: 0,2
<youenn> vote: 2
vote: 2,1
<TonyR> vote: abstain
<Roberto> vote: 1, 2
<Tomj> vote: 1, 0
<RebeccaB> chad, options?
<uyalcina> vote: 2, 1
<Arthur> vote: 0, 2
<Marsh> chad, DaveO: 0
<KevinL> vote:2,0
<Marsh> chad: DaveO: 0
<RebeccaB> vote: 2,0
<alewis> vote: 1, 2
<Marsh> Chad: Charlton: 2, 0
<Marsh> vote: 1, 2
<Marsh> chad, count
<chad> Question: Remove {safety}?
<chad> Option 0: status quo (4)
<chad> Option 1: remove it (5)
<chad> Option 2: move it to an extension (part 2) (7)
<chad> 17 voters: alewis (1, 2) , Allen (2, 1) , Arthur (0, 2) , asir (1, 2) , charlton (2) , Charlton (2, 0) , DaveO (0) , JacekK (0, 2) , KevinL (2, 0) , Marsh (1, 2) , pauld (0, 2) , RebeccaB (2, 0) , Roberto (1, 2) , Tomj (1, 0) , TonyR () , uyalcina (2, 1) , youenn (2)
<chad> Round 1: Count of first place rankings.
<chad> Round 2: Eliminating candidate 0.
<chad> Candidate 2 is elected.
<chad> Winner is option 2 - move it to an extension (part 2)
<pauld> fairly even split, really
<Marsh> Title: WS Description WG Telcon