- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:20:41 -0800
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
[First draft, suggestions welcomed!] ------------------------------------------------------------------ Thursday 3 March ------------------------------------------------------------------ 09:00 Opening formalities a. Introductions & logistics b. Assign scribes: Bijan Parsia, Prasad Yendluri, Kevin Liu, Youenn Fablet, Glen Daniels, Roberto Chinnici, Allen Brookes, Adi Sakala Umit Yalcinalp, Paul Downey, Dale Moberg, Tom Jordahl, Tony Rogers, Rebecca Bergersen 09:15 Alternate Schema Languages - Issue LC70: Pluggability of Schema Languages in WSDL [1] - Proposal A: "mustUnderstand" the schema language. [2] - Proposal B: Tighten the coupling with XML Schema. - Issue LC52b: Last Call Review Comments (b) [3] - Issue LC63: Mixing Schema Languages [4] [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC70 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2004Oct/0024 .html [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC52b [4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC63 10:30 Break 10:50 Conformance - Issue LC5f: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues (f) [5] - Roberto's proposal [6] - No final resolution from FTF, AIs to DBooth/Roberto and DaveO to write up competing proposals - DBooth/Roberto's proposal [7] - Mini-TF to work on a single proposal (stalled out). Want to see whether we're still waiting for an alternative proposal before deciding the issue. - Issue LC75r: Remove conformance requirement on XML Schema [8] - Issue LC75v: Remove "Processor Conformance" [9] [5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5f [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Oct/0027.html [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0099.html [8] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75r [9] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75v 12:00 Lunch 13:00 Issue 76d: First class support for headers [10] - DaveO's v1.2 Headers proposal from Jan FTF. [11] - Asir's proposal for a first-class header support, elements [12] - Asir's proposal for a first-class header support, types [13] - Asir's proposal for SOAP-specific header support [14] - subissue a: mandatory mustUnderstand [15] - subissue b: MUST if possible [15] (Editorial?) - subissue c: Use Schema for versioning, not SOAP headers [15] - subissue d: Wrapper type can't be validated [15] - subissue e: mismatched feature/modules [15] [10] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC76d [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0040.html [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/att-0019/first-c lass-headers-A.html [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/att-0019/first-c lass-headers-B.html [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/att-0094/soap-he ader-blocks.html [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0009.html [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0018.html 15:00 Break 15:20 More "AD" issues: - Issue LC24: "ad:mustUnderstand" - ?? [17] - Issue LC53: Optional predefined features in Part 2 [18] - Issue LC61f: comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (f) [19] [17] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC24 [18] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC53 [19] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC61f 16:30 Joint WSA/WSDL Task Force report - Issue LC101: message level binding? [20] - Issue LC102: What is the SOAP MEP for In-only [21] - Issue LC76a: MEPs should support addressing mechanism [22] [20] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC101 [21] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC102 [22] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC76a 17:30 Adjourn ------------------------------------------------------------------ Friday 4 March ------------------------------------------------------------------ 09:00 Component model changes - Issue LC105: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model [30] - Original proposal [31] - Arthur's modification to the proposal [32] - Need to decide whether to allow "property" extensions at the top level. - Issue LC75u: Add wsdl:documentation to the component model [33] - Issue LC80: Extension Components are not Described [34] - Issue LC81: The Component Model is Underconstrained wrt the WSDL 2.0 Schema [35] - Issue LC83: The Component Model Does Not Enforce Component Nesting [36] - Issue LC89g: Bleed between XML representation, infoset, pseudo-schema, component model [37] - Issue LC89l: Drop component model [38] - Issue LC99: Message Reference Component is Underspecified [39] [30] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC105 [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0056.html [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0066.html [33] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75u [34] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC80 [35] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC81 [36] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC83 [37] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89g [38] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC89l [39] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC99 10:30 Break 10:50 Component model issues (cont.) 12:00 Lunch 13:00 Media Type Description Note - Issue 272 Architectural issues [40] - Possible visit from Henry Thompson? - I18N issues [41] - Larry's comment [42] - Publication plan? [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2004Nov/0011.h tml [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-media-types/2005Feb/0000.h tml [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0066.html 14:30 Issue LC106: Revisit LC21 resolution [43] - LC21: Multipart Style and {direction}=out [44] [43] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC106 [44] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC21 15:00 Break 15:20 More RPC issues (may be bumped by higher-priority work) - Issue LC75e: Move RPC style to Part 2 [45] - Issue LC75g: RPC should allow element wildcards [46] - Issue LC75h: Disallow multiple returns in RPC [47] [45] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75e [46] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75g [47] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75h 16:30 Adjourn
Received on Friday, 25 February 2005 00:23:03 UTC