- 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